Code Switching in Student ELF Interactions
An Analysis of Cultural Expressiveness through Lexical References
MA Thesis Intercultural Communication Studies
Department of English Language and Culture, Utrecht University
M.A. Frantzen (3409147)
Supervised by: Supheert, R., and M. Keijzer
July 2012
1
Contents
Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................4
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................5-8
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Intercultural Communication .........................................................................9-10
2.2 Culture and Identity .......................................................................................10-12
2.3 Discourse Analysis ........................................................................................12-13
2.4 Lingua Franca Communication.......................................................................14-15
2.5 Bilingualism and Multilingualism…………………………………………...15-16
2.6 Introduction to Code Switching......................................................................16-18
2.7 Borrowing ......................................................................................................18-19
2.8 Cultural Concepts: Lexical Items ...................................................................19-21
2.9 Code Switching Motivations and Locations………………………………....21-24
2.10 Research Question and Hypotheses .............................................................24-27
3. Methodology
3.1 Selection of Participants.................................................................................28-29
3.2 Collection and Selection of the Groups .........................................................29-30
3.3 Data Collection ..............................................................................................30-37
3.4 The Selection and Processing of Data………………………………………37-41
3.5 Transcription Conventions..............................................................................41-42
3.6 Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................42-44
2
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Group G1 (Native + Non-Native) ..................................................................45-53
4.2 Group G2 (Non-Native) .................................................................................54-59
4.3 Group G3 (Native) .........................................................................................59-61
5. Conclusion
5.1 Hypotheses and Research Question…………………………………………62-67
5.2 Limitations......................................................................................................67-68
5.3 Future Directions............................................................................................68-69
6. Works Cited......................................................................................................70-72
Appendix 1: Transcriptions
1.1 Group G1: Native and Non-Native Speaker...................................................73-77
1.2 Group G2: Non-Native Speakers....................................................................77-85
1.3 Group G3: Native Speakers............................................................................86-88
Appendix 2: Questionnaires
2.1 Group G1: Native and Non-Native Speaker...................................................1-18
2.2 Group G2: Non-Native Speakers....................................................................19-32
2.3 Group G3: Native Speakers............................................................................33-50
Questionnaires: the questionnaires can be found at the end of chapter 9, where they will be
presented in chronological order (group 1, 2, 3). The answers to the extra four questions that
arose during the recording session of the third group (those which are presented in the results
chapter) are presented at the back of each questionnaire. Speaker G3 Af has written the
answers to these questions on the first page of her questionnaire.
3
i.
Acknowledgements
I owe my sincere gratitude to many people who have helped me to conduct this research. I am
grateful to all of the research participants without whom I would not have been able to
conduct this study. I am especially grateful for the academic insights and guidance I’ve
received from Roselinde Supheert who has supervised this thesis. I thank Merel Keijzer for
being the second reader of this thesis and commenting on the contents of this research from a
linguist’s perspective on code switching. Many thanks to Esther Verheijen and Lette van den
Berg who have been my study mates during these past few months and have accompanied me
in the library on many occasions. Special thanks to my housemate, Misha Koole, who has
been kind enough to lend me his audio recorder, which I used to record the different group
conversations, and who has read and commented on several chapters of my thesis.
Furthermore, I want to express thanks to my mum who has encouraged me to continue with
this project and to Job Muntinga who fixed my computer so that I could continue to work on
my thesis.
4
1. Introduction
The ways in which people interact with each other are, for a great part, influenced by people’s
linguacultural backgrounds. Especially in this globalizing world, with an increase of
international relations, the field of intercultural communication studies has acquired a lot of
attention over the past few decades. One of these international relations, which will be
examined in this study, is the intercultural interaction between students from different
linguacultural backgrounds. This study will focus on these students’ ability to express or
display cultural identities via the use of different languages in English lingua franca (ELF)
conversations. This thesis thus takes a socio-linguistic approach where code switching, a
situation in which “the speaker makes a complete shift to another language for a word, phrase,
or sentence and then reverts back to the base language,” will be regarded as a method to
express and display cultural identities which are employed by international and local Dutch
student participants from three different research groups (Grosjean 51-52). The definition of
code switching will also refer to Rampton’s idea of code switching which he calls crossing
[my emphasis]. This concept can be explained as “the act of speaking a variety which is not
‘owned’ by the speaker but rather ‘belongs’ to a group which they cannot legitimately claim
to be part of” (qtd. in Auer 408). This form of code switching will be discussed with the
analysis of code switches that occur in each group but attention will particularly be paid to the
act of code switching to other varieties of English in the native speaker research group. Many
studies have been conducted in the field of “interaction analyses: an approach occupied with
the investigation of intercultural practices that take place between people from different
linguacultural backgrounds” (ten Thije and Deen 91). Within this approach, ELF
communication has been a widely discussed topic where researchers such as Seidlhofer, Cogo
and Dewey, Jenkins and Firth, to name but a few, have mostly discussed the pragmatic side of
ELF in their studies. Kalocsai argues that “ELF research today has been mainly descriptive
[and that] … a great deal of research into ELF still takes a linguistic perspective which is
focused on the definition of ELF features” and not so much on the [socio-cultural] “context”
in which ELF is used (26). Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that although “a number
of studies have been carried out on ELF in phonology, lexicogrammar and pragmatics, few of
them have been carried out on the use of other languages within ELF” (Cogo and Dewey 27;
Klimpfinger 37).
Alternatively, this study will offer both a linguistic and social perspective to lingua
5
franca communication where linguistic elements of ELF will be addressed in order to explain
the socio-cultural context in which ELF is used. This study will partly follow the line of two
studies which have been conducted by the linguists Pőlzl and Klimpfinger. Both of them have
taken a sociolinguistic approach to code switching in ELF communication in their studies,
wherein they relate the use of code switching in intercultural conversations with the
expression of individual and group identities. This study is based on the information and ideas
gathered from these previously conducted studies, but takes place in a different setting.
Pőlzl’s study is related to the role of L1/Ln1 in ELF conversations whereby she investigates to
what extent the implementation of these languages in ELF speech can signal someone’s
cultural identity. Pőlzl recorded several conversations between people from different
linguacultural backgrounds which “included a variety of settings (professional, educational
and private settings,) professional profiles (academics, students, housewives, tourist guides, a
merchant and a doctor) and different ELF proficiency levels” (7). In this study, she
specifically pays attention to the role of (single) code switches, as explained on the previous
page, and borrowings which are “lexical items transferred from one language to another,
where they are adapted to the linguistic forms of the second language in the participants’
speech” (van Dulm 8-10). Klimpfinger’s study relates to the analysis of code switching
instances within casual conversations and “thus aims to contribute to the description of ELF
by shedding some light on the use of other languages in ELF talk” (37). The practical
approach of her study entails the analysis of code switching via “eight workshop and working
group discussions of speakers from a variety of European language backgrounds, all of whom
use English successfully as their only means of communication” (37).Thus, based on their
research, this current study will also comprise an analysis of code switching utterances in ELF
conversations. In contrast with the previous studies, however, the aim is to conduct an original
study where, as opposed to other studies in this field, a comparative analysis of code
switching features will be offered between three different group conversations, where the
participants, who consist of local Dutch and international students, will make up a mix of
different linguacultural backgrounds. Via three authentic, informal dinner conversations,
1
Ln is described by Pőlzl as a “co-participant’s primary language” (12). In this research, however, this
description will be extended by applying it to denote any language or variety of a language used by any
individual speaker, except for his/her native language(s) or English, when speaking about the non-native
participants of the group. With respect to the native speakers of English, Ln will apply to them when they use
another variety or style of English which is not considered as their own.
6
which will take place in homely settings, code switches within ELF conversations will be
localized, transcribed and eventually analyzed in relation to the expression of cultural
identities. The first group will consist of native and non-native speakers of English, whereas
the second and the third conversation will consist of only non-native and only native speakers,
respectively. It is assumed that having only non-native speakers of English in this group will
offer a variety of code switches to different languages, whereby the role of English and
native-speakers will not be the main focus of the conversation. In other words, native speakers
are excluded from this conversation because it will be interesting to see if there will be any
differences in the type and contents of code switches when comparing the first and second
conversation to one another. With regard to the third conversation, it will be interesting to
observe if, under the influence of native speakers, non-native speakers will switch to a variety
of a native speaker by using lexemes and idioms that would belong to a particular variety or
dialect of a native speaker. Having three different groups consisting of participants from a
range of different linguacultural backgrounds, will offer interesting insights into the
implementation of and motivation for code switching. With regard to code switching,
attention will be paid to lexemes which express or display cultural concepts. These lexemes
will be analyzed as code switches when they appear in the form of single word switches,
established borrowings and idiomatic expressions that carry cultural meanings. With these
cultural concepts, I will try to prove that even within this lingua franca communication system
which is, according to House, “not dependent on native speaker norms [as it is used as] “a
language of communication, not identification,” ELF is able to accommodate all kinds of
different cultural identities and language varieties that are related to these identities (557).
This makes ELF one of few communication systems where people are given enough freedom
to express their cultural (group) identity (i.e., ethnic, cultural, national, regional identity) by
using their own and other language varieties within ELF conversations (House 557; Tracy 1819; Wenger 145).
With this study, I am interested to find the reasons behind code switching, the forms in
which code switching occurs and the places where code switches are most likely to occur in
the speech of the participants of the three conversations. The following research question will
serve as a guideline for the analysis of the code switches that occur in the conversations and
will be used, as a main guideline, to answer the questions which have just been raised:
7
How are lexical items, presented in single code switches, established borrowings and lexical
idioms, used in order to express speakers’ linguacultural backgrounds in ELF conversations
of native and non-native speakers of English?
8
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Intercultural Communication
It is necessary to be concerned with the definition of intercultural communication because this
research will focus on aspects of intercultural communication which will present themselves
in conversations between groups of international and local Dutch students. As the definition
of intercultural communication is subject to different interpretations, Allwood’s interpretation
of this concept will be applied in this study because it represents how intercultural
communication will be investigated in this particular study, i.e., communication “between
people from different backgrounds” where the interaction that takes place during
“participation in [certain] activities” will be analyzed (Allwood 1-3). Allwood described
intercultural communication as follows:
[It is] communication that occurs between people or institutions with different cultural
backgrounds and to a greater extent as the sharing of information on different levels of
awareness and control between people with different cultural backgrounds, where
different cultural backgrounds include both national cultural differences and
differences which are connceted [sic] with participation in the different activities that
exist within a national unit. (1-3)
The participation that Allwood describes is presented in this study as the interaction that takes
place between groups of (study) friends and acquaintances who exchange their ideas and
beliefs during casual, intercultural, dinner conversations. Spencer-Oatey and Franklin argue
that “[a]n intercultural situation is one in which the cultural distance between the participants
is significant enough to have an effect on interaction/communication that is noticeable to at
least one of the parties” (3). As the research groups are all culturally diverse groups, the
“cultural distances between the participants will be significant and noticeable” when
examining their interactions and the contents of their speech (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 3).
What is more, Koole and ten Thije observe that it is important to be aware of the fact that
intercultural communication can, but is not always related to problems and
“miscommunications” that evolve from communication between people from different
“linguacultural backgrounds who do not share the same [cultural] meanings and practices” (
“Reconstruction” 571). Instead, the authors argue that it is more interesting to observe that
intercultural communication is only possible when interactants construct a “common ground
of meanings and practices that are oriented as shared and which is also known as the process
9
of establishing an ‘intercultural discourse’ ” (“Reconstruction” 571). In the next section, a
discussion will be presented on the connection between culture and identity within
intercultural conversations.
2.2 Culture and Identity
The difficulty of defining the term intercultural communication can partly be owed to the
different viewpoints regarding the concept of culture, which, according to many researchers,
is a notion which is difficult to grasp because one should be wary of making generalizations
about groups of people. Matsumoto describes culture as “the set of attitudes, values, beliefs,
and behaviours shared by a group of people, but different for each individual, communicated
from one generation to the next” (qtd. in Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 14). Matsumoto’s
definition of culture will be applied in this study because it is related to the notion of cultural
group identities which are identities that will be discussed here. It will be interesting to
observe how these “attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours” will be expressed through code
switching, i.e., how the participants will be able to express cultural concepts which they
associate with their own or other group culture(s) (Matsumoto qtd. in Spencer-Oatey and
Franklin 14). In addition to this description of culture, Spencer-Oatey and Franklin argue that
culture can be examined from an emic or etic perspective. Emic is used to describe a culture
from the inside when looking at “ideas, behaviours, items, and concepts that are culturespecific,” whereas an etic perspective looks at …“concepts that are culture general - i.e.
universal” (Triandis qtd. in Spencer-Oatey and Franklin 16). Lett argues that the ideas that
people associate with emic and etic views depend on the role people have in or outside a
particular culture. The etics approach is usually related when to the act of drawing
comparisons between different cultures. These are called cross-cultural comparisons whereby
an observer takes an outsider’s perspective with the study of several cultures (Lett; SpencerOatey and Franklin 16-17). Hofstede, who conducted a study into the “attitudes and workrelated values of IBM employees around the world,” takes an “etic perspective to culture” as
he makes “cross-cultural comparisons” between different cultures (Spencer-Oatey and
Franklin 16-23). Hofstede makes some etic observations when he argues that society X and Y
can be categorized into collectivist and individualist societies, or that society or culture X
shows to have a more inferior treatment of women than society Y (Spencer-Oatey and
Franklin 16-23). Emic perspectives are observations which are made from within the culture
and are not, in the first place, used to make comparisons between cultures (Spencer-Oatey and
10
Franklin 16-23). An example of an etic perspective could be the observation that elderly
population in the Netherlands are, generally speaking, healthier compared to the majority of
the elderly population in country X or Y. When researching this matter, one of the reasons for
this phenomenon can be related to the high standards of the Dutch healthcare system and the
improvements that have been made in this healthcare system in the past few years which
enable people to live longer with fewer healthcare problems. Thus, the high standard of the
Dutch healthcare system is something which is, in this case, recognized as an intrinsic
element of the Dutch welfare state. This is an emic observation as it is observed by someone
within the culture who has investigated this phenomenon. The emic and etic approach are
anthropological ways of studying different cultures from an insider’s or outsider’s
perspective. Because code switching references will be made to aspects within different
cultures, it is important to be aware of the differences between emic and etic approaches to
culture. This disctinction was introduced in “1954 by the linguistic anthropologist Kenneth
Pike,” who argued that “this perspective could be used to observe people’s behavior within in
the study of a society’s cultural system” as noted by Lett. This disctinction has gained much
attention in behavioural and social sciences and especially in the field of anthropology where
it is applied within the “ethnographic” research method, as observed by Lett. In this present
study, both the emic and etic description will play an important role as participants from the
different research groups will reflect on their culture from an emic perspective but the
researcher, being an outsider to many of the participants’ cultures and not having studied their
cultures from within, will take an etic approach when analyzing the cultural concepts that
have been identified as aspects which express the participants’ cultural identities.
In terms of identity, Tracy argues that a person can have multiple identities and might
want to convey or show one of these particular identities depending on the context or situation
someone finds himself in (17-18). For example, people may want to convey their formal
identity when speaking to business partners, but will convey a less formal, personal identity
when being in the company of friends or family. Wenger observes identity in terms of group
memberships and modes of belonging where practice plays an important role in identity
construction, i.e., when people feel a connection or a sense of belonging to one or more
specific “social communities” (145). This study will particularly address the aspect of
social/cultural groups where a sense of belonging to a particular group will be exposed by the
use of cultural concepts in the speech of the participants. Thus, language will be seen and
analyzed as a method of constructing and conveying cultural identities by code switching to
11
L1’s or Ln’s and thus employing languages as a means of constructing and display cultural
identities. There are many forms of identities, according to Tracy, but as this study pertains to
the expression of cultural, group identities only the role of “master identities [emphasis
added], [which are] those aspects of personhood that are presumed to be relatively stable and
unchanging: gender, ethnicity … national and regional origins,” will be discussed in this
investigation (18-19). More specifically, when analyzing the contents of code switches, this
study will examine those switches which express aspects of cultural identities, i.e., those
“cultural concepts relating to elements of master identities,” and analyze if these culturally
loaded switches are manifested in single code switches, which may or may not occur in the
form of (colloquial) lexemes, or through idiomatic expressions or established borrowings
(Tracy 18-19). References to food, the arts, ethnicity, national or regional symbols, habits,
events and geographical locations, to name but a few, are examples of cultural references
which might appear in code switches. The following two sections will discuss aspects of
conversation and interaction analyses and the methods of research within these fields.
2.3 Discourse Analysis
As this study focuses on the analysis of communication that takes place within international
groups of people, it is self-evident that multilingual communication will take place and that in
spite of people’s linguistic and cultural backgrounds, intercultural communication can take
place (House and Rehbein 2-4). House and Rehbein argue that within multilingual
communication there are several things which need to be taken into account: “the interaction
of the languages involved, participants’ multilingual skills, and the mode in which [languages
are] being used” (2-4). Because the research groups in this study are multicultural and
multilingual, one can observe the formation of different discourse analyses. This experiment
will focus on the analysis and construction of the interlanguage approach [emphasis in the
original]. This approach consists of analyzing “non-native discourse in a second or foreign
language,” whereas the area of “interaction analyses [emphasis in the original] examines how
the realization of intercultural understanding is reconstructed” (ten Thije and Deen 91). As
Messelink argues in her thesis, it is possible to “achieve successful communication in
[intercultural] groups where not two, but more languages and cultures are represented” (12).
She supports ten Thije and Deen’s views who believe that a “common ground can be
achieved by means of developing new communicative forms which can lead to the existence
of a new culture, a discursive interculture [emphasis added]” (Messelink 12). The actions
12
which are carried out in the research groups, i.e. the discursive interculture groups, result from
the interactions that take place between the participants and the difficulties and other issues
they might encounter in their interactions (Koole and ten Thije 69). The contents of this
investigation will thus have a strong affiliation with the functional pragmatic approach
[emphasis added] to discourse, a discourse form explained as “an approach that seeks to
reconstruct the activities speaker(s) and hearer(s) perform when they interact” (Koole and ten
Thije 73). We will try to shed light on this reconstruction of activities which are manifested
by the use of code switches. As previously mentioned, Koole and ten Thije argue that
intercultural communication is only possible when all the interactants within the intercultural
discourse are willing to come to terms with each other, i.e., when a “common ground” can be
established (68-69). In continuation, they observe that “[it is interesting to] propose an
analysis of intercultural communication which aims at the reconstruction of the ‘common
ground’ and the process of its construction (Koole and ten Thije 571). The authors emphasize
that it is evident to examine the “communicative procedures and structures which interactants
have constructed in order to control the differences and contradictions between the cultural
groups involved. Misunderstandings or problems that might occur because of different
cultural interpretations can be solved or repaired within the discourse” (69). Thus, these issues
make way for the development of new communicative forms, the “repair [of]
misunderstanding[s] or the dominance of structure of action over the other.” This is called
intercultural discourse (Koole and ten Thije 69). This term, as well as being “a form of
discourse” can also be seen as “a form of culture [when it is called a] discursive interculture:
the culture constructed in cultural contact” (Koole and ten Thije 69). The “discursive
interculture” can then be regarded as a “new culture” which is realized by the participants in
each international research group. The formation of this “new culture” can be “owed to the
actions which are carried out by the participants and the results from the interactions that take
place between them and the difficulties and other issues they might encounter in their
interaction” (Koole and ten Thije 68-69). The discursive interculture, formed in each research
group, might comprise of a (silent) agreement in which the cultural concept of code switching
is used. These group interactions can, therefore, be perceived as intercultural discourses which
develop themselves as new discourse cultures.
13
2.4 Lingua Franca Communication
A discussion will now be presented on the role of identity and code switching in lingua franca
conversations. House and Rehbein observe that “[…] due to the situation of contact between
different languages as different communication systems, languages mutually influence one
another and give rise to changes that may result in the creation of differentiated, multilingual
communication systems” (2). An analysis will be presented of this new “creation of a
differentiated, multilingual communication system” which will be discussed as an ELF
system in this study. ELF conversations are intercultural communicative situations where its
speakers do not share a mutual “native language or culture” (Firth qtd. in House). During the
past two decades that ELF has been actively researched, there has been much controversy
over what one might call a lingua franca and who can be regarded as its speakers. More
recently, however, as Cogo and Dewey have argued, “most researchers active in lingua franca
research today, [such as Seidlhofer and Jenkins], would agree that this can involve speakers
from all over Kachru’s three circles” (12). The inner circle refers to countries where English
is spoken as a native language, the outer or extended circle denotes those countries where
English is spoken “as a second language and holds an important position in government or
educational institutions” (Crystal 60). The expanding or extending circle refers to those
countries where English is regarded as an important “international language” (Crystal 60). As
House observes, ELF is [thus] rather used as a “language of communication instead of a
language of identification,” because all nationalities and cultures can be presented within one
linguistic system without relating one’s identity to a particular language (557). On the
contrary, however, this does not mean that ELF speakers are not able to convey their identity
within ELF because they are able to use their native tongue or Ln language(s) to a certain
extent. This phenomenon can be observed when speakers switch to different codes. Instead,
we will argue that ELF is described as a language form which is open to people from all
nationalities and cultures and does not need to “rely on native speaker norms to define the use
of ELF” (House 557). Klimpfinger argues that “most of the research concerning code
switching refers to bilingual speech communities with two or more languages in more or less
regular contact” (37). As will become apparent, “ELF context … are not permanent
communities but ad hoc groupings” where people might not necessarily be called bilinguals”
because they cannot “speak or use two languages equally well” but are, on the contrary, more
proficient in one language than the other [or not that proficient in multiple languages besides
their native language(s)] (Klimpfinger 37-38; Sinclair 142). Klimpfinger argues that even
14
though the “speakers’ level in ELF communication may vary, equal competence in both
languages is not a prerequisite for bilingualism” (37). In other words, she argues that, “lingua
franca speakers are bilingual, if not multilingual speakers… [since they use English, their L1
and Ln languages] and code switching thus revolves around the use of all these languages”
(37). Within the lingua franca group conversations, the occurrence and use of (colloquial)
lexemes manifested in borrowings and single word switches will be analyzed next to lexical
idiomatic expressions. In the following section, we will be concerned with the aspects of
multilingualism and bilingualism which can be seen as language systems that enable code
switching to occur in the first place.
2.5 Bilingualism and Multilingualism
Klimpfinger argues that code switching is a linguistic phenomenon that occurs everywhere
and in any language, but that it has not been fully researched within ELF contexts (46). ELF
contexts are, as Klimpfinger rightly argues, different communities because they are not
“stable”, i.e. ELF communities largely exist of “groups of people where a common language”
must be found to enable (intercultural) communication (46-47). According to Klimpfinger,
code switching has merely been researched in groups of bilingual people. However, in many
cases, it remains unclear what this term actually means because some argue that being a
bilingual speaker automatically means that one has to be “equally competent in two
languages” where others argue that being a bilingual does not necessarily require someone to
be “native-like proficient in two languages or more” (Sinclair 142; Klimpfinger 37). This is
the distinction between the minimalist and maximalist approach (Bee Chin and Wigglesworth
5-6). Haugen, being a supporter of the first approach, points out that it is already essential to
note that if an individual can “produce complete meaningful utterances in another language”
this can be considered as the starting point where one might call him or herself a bilingual [or
when speaking about the ability to speak multiple languages, a multilingual] speaker (qtd. in
Bee Chin and Wigglesworth 5). Haugen’s viewpoint will be followed in this particular
research because it is important to note that the research participants are not equally proficient
in English and that there are differences in proficiency levels between the languages they
speak (native, non-native and ELF). It is as Sridhar observes:
[M]ultilingualism involving balanced, native-like command of all languages in the
repertoire is rather uncommon. Typically, multilinguals have varying degrees of
command of the different repertoires. The differences in competence in the various
15
languages might range from command of a few lexical items, formulaic expressions
such as greetings, and rudimentary conversational skills all the way to excellent
command of the grammar and vocabulary and specialized register and styles. (qtd. in
Wardhaugh 93).
It is important to be aware that there are many different viewpoints on the use of and
distinction of these two terms. One of the reasons for these differening viewpoints is related to
the different fields of linguists. As it is not the intention of this study to be concerned with the
debate about these differences, it is essential to note that these two terms will be kept apart in
this study because “people who are bilingual or multilingual do not necessarily have exactly
the same abilities in the languages (or varieties)” (Wardhaugh 93). With regard to the
aforementioned ideas, it seems that it is more important to focus on the ways in which
languages are used by individual speakers and not so much to what extent they can be
classified as bilingual speakers of language X or Y. However, in order to be clear throughout
this study, these two terms will be kept apart by reffering to people who are able to
communicate in two languages as bilinguals and those who are able to communicate in more
than two languages as multilinguals. The term multilingual will mostly be applied as almost
all of the participants have indicated to speak more than two languages. When talking about
the idea of speaking several languages, Sridhar’s observation will be taken as a guideline. In
the following sections, we will discuss what definition of code switching will be used in this
particular study, what the reasons are for its occurrence in conversations, in what forms code
switches occur and where they are most likely to occur in conversations.
2.6 Introduction to Code Switching
Van Dulm, Olivares Baños and Wardhaugh explain that “code switching is a linguistic verbal
situation in which people (usually bilinguals) mix two or more languages during their
conversation by applying linguistic utterances from one or more languages into their language
of communication” (1; 2; 98). According to Grosjean, “there are two ways of calling in the
other, “guest” language [emphasis in the original]: through what is called code-switching …
and through borrowing” (51). In the following sections, the difference between these two
forms, which are both seen as elements of the general concept of code switching, will be
discussed. This study will thus contribute to the analysis of these two concepts. The general
concept of code switching is defined as situations in which “the speaker makes a complete
shift to another language for a word, phrase, or sentence and then reverts back to the base
16
language” (Grosjean 51-52). In other words, code switching can thus be used to refer to the
alternation of “single words, clauses, phrases and entire sentences” (Poplack et al. 93; van
Dulm 10; Grosjean 51-52).
In addition, the concept of code switching will also be extended to Rampton’s definition
of switching which he calls crossing. This concept can be explained as “the act of speaking a
variety which is not ‘owned’ [emphasis in the original] by the speaker but rather ‘belongs’
[emphasis in the original] to a group which they cannot legitimately claim to be part of” (qtd.
in Auer 408). In other words, this type of code switching will be used to explain code
switches that are made to a co-participant’s language (variety) or to any other language
(variety) which does not belong to that of the speaker. According to Rampton, it “involves a
sense of movement across quite sharply felt social or ethnic boundaries … and raises issues of
legitimacy that participants need to reckon with in the course of their encounter” (1-2). Thus,
in this present study, language crossing might also appear between different styles or varieties
of the same language where, for example, a native speaker of American English might also
switch to another style or variety of English, such as American Vernacular English or Scots.
This act of crossing will be most interesting to observe in the group of native speakers.
Rampton explains this form of code switching as a means of “exploring other people’s
ethnicities, embracing them and/or creating new ones,” which is also an aspect that is
characteristic to ELF conversations as they accommodate native and non-native speakers with
different mother tongues, cultural backgrounds and English proficieny levels (qtd. in
Messelink 21). This investigation will chiefly focus on the analysis of code switches which
carry cultural meanings, i.e., those code switches which refer to cultural concepts and are, in
the first place, present in the culture or are part of the cultural identity of the speaker, the coparticipants or refer to other cultures. These code switches are most likely to occur as single
word switches, established borrowings, and lexical idiomatic expressions. Furthermore, it will
be assumed that code switching can be done purposely or unconsciously. In either case, it will
be regarded as code switching. This study, however, will assume that code switching is
something which, in most of the cases where code switches occur in the conversations, is
done consciously in order to express cultural identities. Additionally, the motivations for code
switching will be discussed. The only aspect that will be focused on is that these code
switches need to be authentic. Summing up words in different languages or purposely
indicating what a word is in language X or Y when speaking about cultural differences will
not be regarded as code switching because these cases are examples of random statements
17
uttered in any other language or language variety which does not belong to the speaker. To
regard these aspects as code switches will undermine the authenticity of this study and will,
therefore, not be analyzed here. Established borrowings, which will be discussed in the next
paragraph, is a component of code switching which is more likely to be used unconsciously
since borrowings are integrated into the guest language for a longer period of time. This
makes it more common to be used and occur in the guest language whereas for code switches
it is often difficult to determine whether it is done consciously or unconsciously. The
motivations for CS 2will be discussed at a later stage in this theoretical framework.
Some examples of code switches are provided here below. The first example illustrates
a single word switch, whereas the second example shows a “code alternation [which] involves
an entire phrase or clause” (Grosjean 52; Dulay, Burt and Krashen 115). The third example
illustrates a form of language crossing which is seen among English adolescents from Panjabi
descent.
 “On a pris un trail [emphasis in the original] / We followed a trail” (Grosjean 52).
 “Those are friends from Mexico que tienen chamaquitos/ Those are friends from Mexico who have
little kids” (Gumperz and Hernández-Chávez qtd. in Dulay, Burt and Krashen 115).
 “Ray : ((singing)) I just called to say | I got | a big=
Ray : |I hate you|
Ian : =[lullA˘] ((Panjabi for 'willy'))” (Rampton 2-3).
2.7 Borrowing
Muysken argues that borrowing is the act of “[incorporating] lexical elements from one
language in the lexicon of another language.” Muysken argues as follows:
[first of all,] a fluent bilingual inserts the lexical item from language A to language B,
then, insertion of the lexical item becomes a frequent occurrence in a speech
community, also named as conventionalized code switching, [and finally,] the item
becomes adapted phonologically, morphologically and syntactically to the rules of
language B and is fully recognized as a word of language B by monolingual speakers.
(qtd. in van Dulm 9-10)
When speaking about borrowings, this study will only be concerned with the type of
borrowings called established borrowings or established loan words because they, in
2
CS: code switching
18
comparison to other forms of borrowings, are most likely to occur in the speech of the
participants. In this study, the aspect of borrowing will be regarded as a type of CS (such as
code mixing and code blending). More information about this distinction can be found in the
introduction paragraph on code switching. It is more likely that this type of borrowings
(established borrowings) will occur since it is well-known that there are occasions where
Indo-European languages have mutually influenced one another and where some IndoEuropean languages have also borrowed some lexemes from other Indo-European. As every
participant can at least speak two or more Indo-European languages (see results chapter or
questionnaire) it can be assumed that borrowings will be uttered by the speakers. When
speaking of mutual influences between these languages, the notion of lexical, established
borrowings is meant here. These are borrowings which have become “integrated into a
monolingual’s language.” They are words, also known as lexemes, which have become part
of [a guest language] and can “hardly be replaced” as some of them have been borrowed a
long time ago. The English language, for example, has borrowed many words from the French
language such as “the words ‘poet’, ‘duke’ and ‘companions’ ” (Grosjean 61). “Although the
phonological adaptation of borrowings is still discussed, e.g. whether they are fully adapted to
the base language or keep some of their guest-language phonology, their morphological
adaptation is much less discussed, as observed by Záňová (15).
2.8 Cultural Concepts: Lexical Items
Not only will attention be paid to different lexical items which present themselves as (single)
word switches which can stand separately or are part of a clause or phrase, but also lexical
items which occur as established borrowings and as elements of idiomatic expressions will be
discussed if they are examples of lexemes which refer to cultural concepts.
“The lexis, [which is more generally known as a] ‘word’, is used as a general more
technical term to denote vocabulary or diction. It is regarded as the most important means we
possess for expressing or encoding our ideas and experience” (Wales 274-275). This study
will interchangeably use the terms lexemes and lexical items to refer to words which carry
cultural meanings (Wales 275). Additionally, Wales argues that “there is also the possibility
of a lexical item comprising more than one word: e.g. phrasal verbs (make up) and idioms
(pins and needles)” (276). Attention will be given to those lexemes which “have grammatical
meaning (content words) and are typically [presented as] nouns, verbs and adjectives [which]
make reference to objects and experiences in the world” (Wales 276). These lexemes or
19
lexical items will offer interesting references to cultural aspects as “lexical choices … serve as
clear markers of the imagined speaker’s perspective, opinions, and identity and can reveal
very subtle differences between characters’ styles of speaking and thinking,” and thus also
between different societies and cultures (Stockwell 75). In this thesis, we will also be
concerned with the occurrence of code switches that function as idioms. Idioms are linguistic
items which are related to linguacultural backgrounds and will also be considered as a means
by which one can express his or her cultural identity. According to Wales:
In linguistics, idioms most usually denote phrases or strings of words which are
idiosyncratic (idiomatic) in that they are language-specific, not easily translated into
another language and in that their meaning is not easily determined from the meanings
of their constitutive parts. Idioms are commonly metaphorical and often don’t make any
sense when they are taken literally. (231)
More specifically, lexical idiomatic expressions are those idioms that are “clearly associated
with the vividness of colloquial speech, such as the lexical idiom he’s kicked the
bucket/snuffed it [emphasis in the original]” (Wales 231). Alternatively, collocations, which
are often mistaken for idioms, are regarded as the “expected occurrence of words” (Wales
76). The difference between a collocation and an idiom, however, lies in the meaning. “The
meaning of a collocation can be interpreted by combining the meanings of the separate words
in the phrase; the meaning of the idiom is more than (and often quite different from) the
meaning of the separate words within the idiom” (Kies, screen. 1). Because this study is
focused on the presentation of linguistic utterances produced by people from different
linguacultural backgrounds, idioms might be useful to examine in this present study as they
are also a means by which people can express their linguacultural background. “Idioms [are]
sometimes used as a loose equivalent to language or variety or even idiolect, and so meaning
any set of linguistic features peculiar to a speech community, group or individual” (Wales
231).
Furthermore, when analyzing the different forms of code switching, a distinction shall
be made between three grammatical types of code switching which relate to the position of
the code switches within linguistic utterances. Romaine argues that Poplack has made a
distinction between three linguistic forms of code switching that might occur during
conversations: “tag switching, inter-sentential and intra-sentential switching” (122). Poplack
argues, according to Romaine, that first of all, “tag-switching [emphasis added] involves the
use of a tag in one language into an utterance which is otherwise entirely in the other
20
language” (Romaine 122). Secondly, inter-sentential [emphasis added] switching is explained
as “a switch at a clause or sentence boundary, where each clause or sentence is in one
language or another” (Romaine 122). Lastly, intra-sentential [emphasis added] switching is
defined “as the switching of different types [which may] occur within the clause or sentence
boundary” (Romaine 123). This distinction shall be further clarified in the analysis chapter,
where the different code switching occurrences will be categorized into these linguistic forms.
However, as explained before, content words will be examined in this investigation which
consequently means that the analysis of tag switches will be left out of this study. Examples
of English/Afrikaans code switching in the form of tag, inter-sentential and intra-sentential
switching are listed here below in that following order:
 “Nee hier’s ‘n paar goedjies, sorry/ Oh no, there are a few things here, sorry” (van Dulm qtd. in van
Dulm 16).
 “I love Horlicks maar hier’s niks/ I love Horlicks but there is nothing here” (van Dulm qtd. in van
Dulm 16).
 “You’ve got no idea how vinnig I’ve been slaan-ing this bymekaar/ You have no idea how quickly I’ve
been throwing this together” (van Dulm 16)
2.9 Code Switching: Motivations and Locations
It is interesting to answer the question as to why people use code switches in their speech and
if they are consciously aware of using code switches in their speech. Wardhaugh argues that
“[code switching] can arise from individual choice or be used as a major identity marker for a
group of speakers who must deal with more than one language in their common pursuits”
(98). It can thus function as a means of defining social and “interpersonal relations” (Gal qtd.
in Wardhaugh 98). It can be seen as a tool to express one’s linguistic identity, and at the same
time, a way to symbolize that one is part of a particular group and is able to exert a group (e.g.
ethnic, cultural, national or regional) identity that comes together with this group membership
(Wardhaugh 98). “Code switching [can even become] a form of political expression: a move
either to resist some other power, or to gain power, or to express solidarity, or to claim an
identity” (Wardhaugh 101).
Meier Bishop argues that [although it is sometimes difficult to determine the
difference between conscious and unconscious code switching] “[t]here is evidence that
bilingual speakers both consciously and unconsciously participate in [code switching]” (16).
In addition, Bekcer observes that “[code switches] are often triggered by unconscious factors
21
and consequently, bilingual speakers are often unaware of their spontaneous alternation
between languages” (qtd. in Maier Bishop 16). On the contrary, Grosjean states that
“uncontrolled code switching occurs in just a handful of individuals like aphasics [and that
even then] most aphasic patients control their code-switching well” (53). In this present study,
we will consider Grosjean’s view on the consciousness of code switching because with the
recording sessions that will take place at the participants’ homes, it is most likely that the
participants will be aware of their code switching behavior since they would sense their
diversion from the main language that is used in these conversations. Furthermore, when
looking at the level of English proficiency among the groups of students, it is not likely that
code switching will be used because of a lack of proficiency in English as almost all of the
students have indicated that their level of English is either average or above average. In
addition, it is more likely that conscious code switching will occur with individual speakers
who will switch to languages from their co-participants or other languages which they do not
daily use. For this reason, the motivations for the occurrence of different code switches will
be discussed.
In addition, Cogo and Dewey observe that code switching is a form of
accommodation. They argue that Giles and Coupland and Giles et al. have focused themselves
on the explanation of accommodation theories. The three accommodation strategies which are
discussed here are “convergence, divergence and maintenance” (“Efficiency” 70). The first,
according to Cogo and Dewey, “occurs when a speaker alters or shifts his or her speech to
resemble that of the interlocutor,” divergence refers to the ways in which speakers accentuate
their verbal and non-verbal differences in order to distinguish themselves from others,
[whereas] maintenance is in effect a type of divergence and consists in maintaining one’s
speech behavior, without trying to converge or diverge from the interlocutors” (“Efficiency”
70). Especially in this research, one might assume to see these accommodation strategies
where individuals might have more freedom to express their L1 or Ln linguistic knowledge in
a lingua franca conversation. Cogo and Dewey argue that convergent accommodation
strategies would be used for the following reasons: “communicative efficiency, where one
speaker would change their speech to converge more closely to that of the interlocutor, in
order to be more intelligible” (“Efficiency” 70). The second reason according to Giles and
Coupland is to “maintain integrity, distance or identity” which is more related to the act of
divergence and maintenance (qtd. in Cogo and Dewey, “Efficiency” 70). In this way,
repetition is seen as an important accommodation strategy because speakers might be able to
22
show their solidarity to others by repeating what they have just heard (Cogo and Dewey,
“Efficiency” 70). Code switches can also be explained as the “need of wanting to learn a new
language, or to improve a foreign or second language, as a form of socialization,” Messelink
observes (21). The use of code switches can thus also be explained as a form of “creating new
identities” as Ellwood notes, or as “a way of confirming or denying…one’s identity,” as
Rampton observes (qtd. in Messelink 21).
Furthermore, in her thesis on code-switching among bilingual children, Záňová argues that
there are “eleven basic types of purposes for CS” based on Baker and Garcia’s views (19).
Several of these code switching types which are likely to occur in the conversations will be
listed here. A further discussion of these types shall be held in the analysis chapter of this
thesis, where the motivations will be discussed in relation to the code switching instances that
will occur. The following types are most likely to occur: “emphasis, introduction of certain
topics, no equivalence, reinforcement of a request, clarification of a point (repetition), social
distance (solidarity), communicating common identity, excluding people from a conversation,
including people in a conversation, ease tension and inject humor and change of attitude”
(Záňová 19-30).
Not only is it important to be concerned with the reasons for code switching, but also
to be aware of the contexts in which these code switches are most likely to occur or take place
in intercultural conversations. One of the contributors to the field of code switching studies is
the linguist Michael Clyne. Broersma and de Bot argue in their articles that Clyne has
conducted many studies (1967, 1972, 1977, 1980, and 2003) on code switching in which he
specifically discusses the effects of the sociolinguistic context and trigger words as aspects
which affect the occurrence of code switches in particular places. This last aspect has been
discussed in great detail and discusses the connection between trigger words and places where
code switches are most likely to occur (“De Triggertheorie” 41-43; “Triggered” 1, 2). Clyne
introduced the triggering hypothesis in 1967 which “proposes that words which have similar
form and meaning in two languages can cause, or at least facilitate, a code switch from one
language to the other” (Broersma and de Bot, “Triggered” 2). With this hypothesis, Clyne
argues that cognates which occur in the vicinity of trigger words (before or after trigger
words) can be influenced by the presence of these trigger words and can thus be code
switched (Broersma and de Bot, “De Triggertheorie” 42-43). These cognates are “words
which overlap in both form and meaning” and are therefore easier to recognize by speakers of
different languages (Broersma and de Bot, “De Triggertheorie” 42; “Triggered” 2). The
23
lexemes doctor, supermarket and toilet are examples of cognates which, although spelled
differently in many languages, are words that are well known in many languages where they
have the same meaning. Clyne’s triggering hypothesis has been developed and adjusted since
it was first presented in 1967. In a more recent publication on the triggering hypothesis, Clyne
presents the following examples, listed below, as trigger words:
1. Lexical transfers: (items belonging to one standard language which have also become
part of the lexicon of the speaker’s other language)
Ik ga, ik moet (A)..dingen van de shops EINKAUFEN
I go, I have to (A) buy things from the (Dut.) shops (Eng.) buy+INF (Ger.)
2. Bilingual homophones: (like lexical transfers, bilingual homophones are part of the
speaker’s two or more languages)
En we reckoned Holland was too smal VOOR ONS. Het was te benauwd allemaal.
And we reckoned Holland was too narrow/small for us. It was all too oppressive
everything.
3. Proper Nouns: (most proper nouns are used in both (all) the speaker’s languages and
therefore contribute to the facilitative potential)
Ik heb gelezen ‘Snow White come home’ IT’S ABOUT A WINTER PET
I have read: ‘Snow White come home’ it’s about a winter pet
(162).
The italicized words in these examples are the trigger words which facilitate the occurrence of
the code switches (those lexemes and clauses in capitals).
2.10 Research Question and Hypotheses
Three groups have been included in this study where the first group of participants will
consist of native and non-native speakers of English (incl. Dutch local students), the second
one of only non-native speakers of English (incl. Dutch local students) and the last group of
only native speakers of English. The researcher will also be part of each research group as she
will be present as a participant observer.
The groups are assembled in this way because the objectives of this study are to find out
what the differences between these groups will be when looking at the form and contents of
the code switching utterances that will occur in each group. In other words, the aim of this
investigation will be to find out what kind of code switches are most likely to occur in a
24
particular group, in what contexts these code switches will occur and what the reasons would
be for the participants to implement these switches in the conversation. The first group is the
most multicultural group of all research groups as it contains participants from six different
nationalities. Therefore, it is highly likely that, in this group, code switching might be used to
express one’s own identity because one might feel the necessity to contribute to multicultural
discussions and to maintain one’s cultural identity in a group which consist of so many
different nationalities. Displaying one’s cultural identity in a group that contains so many
different nationalities might be harder for this reason, but it can also reinforce the need to
maintain one’s own identity because of this great multicultural diversity. Staying true to one’s
cultural habits and languages might become more of an effort, but also something which is
necessary to maintain because most of the individuals, except for the Spanish and Dutch
speakers, in this group are the only representatives of their nationality and the cultural identity
that is conneted with this. In addition, as these students have, on average, been living in the
Netherlands for a longer period than the participants from the second and third group, with the
exception of the native Dutch speakers, they might be more acquainted with the Dutch culture
(as a group) in comparison to the other two groups. Also, because these students are active in
the student association ESN, as becomes apparent from the conversation, they might be more
inclined to refer to Dutch cultural concepts which they encounter in their daily lives, via their
education, Dutch friends, or even within the ESN society. It is, therefore, highly likely that a
discussion of Dutch cultural aspects will take a prominent role in this conversation when it
comes down to the presentation of aspects from other cultures via the use of code switches.
Having said this, the following hypothesis has been formulated with regard to the expected
pattern of code switching utterances that will occur in the conversation of native and nonnative speakers of English.
Hypothesis 1.1:
Because the first group has a great number of different nationalities where, in most cases,
there is only one representative for each nationality (with the exception of the Spanish and
Dutch participants), there might be more need to maintain and display one’s cultural identity
by using borrowings, single word switches and lexical idioms when speaking about aspects
that belong to one’s cultural identity.
25
Hypothesis 1.2:
As these students have, on average, been living in the Netherlands for a longer period than
the participants from the other groups (with the exception of the native Dutch speakers) and
are experiencing the Dutch student life on a daily basis, the participants in this group might
be more acquainted with the Dutch culture and therefore use the names of Dutch cultural
concepts, presented in single word switches, to refer to the Dutch cultural heritage, student
life and typical aspects of a Dutch identity.
The second group, consisting of two Turkish, three Latvian and three Dutch students
(including the researcher), is a conversation which contains only non-native speakers of
English. As this group conversation will be recorded during an informal dinner session, it is
interesting to note that this dinner gathering is associated with a Dutch cultural theme because
the participants in this group are part of a small international ESN (Erasmus student network)
group where the two Dutch mentors from this group have offered to organize a Dutch cultural
evening with a Dutch dinner. Thus, because of this, it can be argued that the Dutch cultural
theme evening might influence the use of code switches to Dutch, when referring to aspects
that are present in the Dutch culture. Having said this, the following hypothesis has been
formulated with regard to the expected pattern of code switching utterances in the
conversation between these non-native speakers of English. The following hypothesis has
been formulated for this group:
Hypothesis 2:
Because the recording session of the second conversation took place during an informal
dinner session that revolved around a Dutch dinner theme, it is most likely that a pattern of
single word switches to Dutch will be used by international and local students to refer to
Dutch cultural concepts.
The third group consists of native speakers of English: two Irish, three English and one
American speaker. In addition, the researcher will also be present as a non-native speaker of
English. As these speakers, except for the researcher, belong to different varieties of English,
it will be interesting to examine whether a speaker will code switch to colloquial words and
idioms which are used in other varieties of English to refer to cultural concepts from one’s
26
own culture or one of the cultures from the other participants. In other words, the act of
crossing will especially be investigated in this group because, according to Rampton’s earlier
mentioned definition, it can also encompass the act of switching to different styles or registers
within a particular language. A variety of English will be defined here as a national form of
English: General American English, British English (RP). As established borrowings are
linguistic units which are more likely to be borrowed into different national languages, this
aspect will not be taken into account when examining the use of code switching in this
conversation because English is the national language spoken by all speakers of this group.
Although this group consists of native speakers of English, ELF will still be regarded as the
language system used in this conversation as the researcher, who takes part in the
conversation, is not a native speaker of English. Instead of analyzing the use of borrowings,
the occurrence of lexical idioms will be examined as they might differ according to the
different varieties of English. This is also the case with specific lexical, colloquial items
which are more commonly applied or known in one variety or dialect of English than the
other. In this case, single word switches will also be taken into account with the analysis of
this group. This brings us to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3:
Native speakers, irrespective of sharing a communal language, are able to express cultural
identities by switching to different codes which are presented as single word switches and
lexical idioms and are linguistically and culturally specific to their co-participants’ variety of
English.
In addition to the hypotheses which have been formulated for each group, the following
research question, which reflects the contents of all three hypotheses, will play a central role
in this study:
Research Question:
How are lexical items, presented in single code switches, established borrowings and lexical
idioms, used in order to express speakers’ linguacultural backgrounds in ELF conversations
of native and non-native speakers of English?
27
3. Methodology
3.1 Selection of the Participants
Three recordings were made of conversations of three student groups in April and May 2012.
The students, consisting of international, exchange and local Dutch students were all living in
Utrecht when the recordings took place. They were either studying at Utrecht University, the
Hogeschool of Utrecht or conducting PhD research via the University of Utrecht. All the
recordings took place in the students’ homes in Utrecht. The recording sessions took place
during dinner time, where dinner for the participants was provided by the researcher as an
expression of gratitude for their help in her research. All the conversations were thus recorded
in homely and authentic settings to generate original and authentic conversations which had
not previously been designed or influenced by the researcher or any other person or situation.
Twenty participants took part in the research: seven participants in group G1, seven
participants in group G2 and six participants in group G3. The participants represented eleven
different nationalities: English, American, Irish, Canadian, Northern Irish, Dutch, Israeli,
Italian, Spanish, Latvian and Turkish. The non-native speakers also included local, Dutch
students. Group G1 consisted of a combination of local Dutch students (including the
researcher), other non-native speakers of English and native speakers of English. Group G2
consists of only non-native speakers of English, i.e., Dutch students (including the researcher)
and non-native speakers from other nationalities. Group G3 consisted of a variety of different
native speakers of English. The groups were assembled in this manner because the objectives
of this study were to find out what kind of code switches were most likely to occur in which
conversations and to find out to what extent the cultural identities and nationalities of the
speakers might affect the occurrence of particular kind of code switches and in what kind of
context these code switches are most likely to occur. In other words, this study aims to answer
the question what forms of code switching will be used by which speakers and in what
context these code switches will occur. The participants are presented in section 3.1 where
their names will be indicated with an abbreviation that indicates the group they belong to (G1,
G2, G3) followed by the first letter(s) of their name, and their gender (m/f). The students have
were selected using the following criteria:
28

There should be a combination of male and female international and local Dutch
students

There should be a combination of native and non-native speakers of English

The students need to study in Utrecht at the time of testing

They should be able to converse in English

The students should all preferably come from Indo-European language backgrounds
because it will be easier to decipher, translate and place code switches from IndoEuropean languages into context since the researcher herself has a Germanic language
background and is not familiar with non-Indo European languages.
3.2 Collection and Selection of Groups
The first group consisted of a Canadian (G1 Nm), a speaker from Northern Ireland (G1 Pm), a
Dutch student (G1 Rm), an Israeli (G1 Nf) and Italian (G1 Mm) speaker, two Spanish
speakers (G1 Sf; G1 Gm) and the researcher who is Dutch herself (G1 Mf). The research
participants were found via several means. The participants in the first group were found via a
post on the Parties, Beers and Evenings in Utrecht facebook page for international and
exchange students studying in Utrecht. A message was posted indicating the search for native
and non-native speakers of English for a research into ELF communication amongst
international and local Dutch students. In this message it was also mentioned that the students
would be compensated for their cooperation via financial means or by offering them a dinner
in exchange for their collaboration. This last offer was eventually carried out for all three of
the conversations. The participants in this conversation knew each other personally as half of
the group lived in the same house and the other participants were friends which they had
invited. Everyone was thus acquainted with each other on a more personal level.
The participants of the second group consisted of three Latvian speakers (G2 Lf; G2 Vf;
G2 If), two Turkish speakers (G2 Sf; G2 Cf) and three Dutch speakers, including the
researcher (G2 Saf; G2 Fm; G2 Mf). The participants for the second group were assembled in
a more personal way since the researcher had heard that two other members of her student
society had become mentors of an international group of students via the ESN (Erasmus
Student Network) and that they were planning to organize an informal dinner with their
international student group. The researcher had asked if she could join their group at one of
their dinner parties. The participants in this group were all acquainted with each other via
ESN (Erasmus Student Network) and were part of an ESN (mentor) group: The ESN mentor
29
program, which influenced the occasion of the Dutch dinner theme, enables Dutch students to
become guides or buddies to a group of international students who are on Erasmus exchange
in Utrecht. Within this ESN mentorship program, the mentors are supposed to introduce the
students to the Dutch culture and to Utrecht. The two Dutch mentors of this ESN group (G2
Saf and G2 Fm) had organized several get-togethers with these students before which
explained the social interaction between the students.
The participants of the third group consisted of three speakers from England (G3 Ff; G3
Cm; G3 Af), two speakers from Ireland (G3 Pm; G3 Bm), one from America (G3 Cf) and the
Dutch researcher (G3 Mf). The third group of participants was selected via a former fellow
student of the researcher who had got her in touch with an American exchange student. After
corresponding with the exchange student, the researcher was invited to record an informal
dinner conversation at her house where she would invite some other native speaker friends
and housemates. The participants in this conversation knew each other personally as half of
the participants were living in the same house on University campus and the other participants
were friends who came over to their house quite often. The participants in this group were
friends.
3.3 Data Collection
All of the participants were told beforehand that that their group conversation would be
recorded for one to two hours and that their identities would remain anonymous in this study.
A portable recording device (sound recorder) was used for all three conversations and placed
on the dinner table during each recording session. The participants were enjoying the dinner
that was cooked by the researcher and during the dinner, each recording session was recorded.
The idea was to have around one hour of recording material and to turn the recorder off when
roughly an hour had been recorded and the discussion of a particular topic around this time
had come to an end. The first, second and third conversation was recorded for 1:03:50,
1:05:39 and 57:21:00 hours, respectively.
Before the recording session took place the participants all agreed to their conversation
being recorded. Before every recording session, the researcher introduced herself to the
research participants and told them about the objectives of her research topic. They were told
that this study would focus on lingua franca communication among international (native +
non-native) speakers of English and that their interactions and the successfulness of their
communication would be assessed. Each group was told that their conversation would
30
afterwards be transcribed. The students were not told that this study would evolve around
code switching and were not aware of the researcher’s interest in this topic. Furthermore, it
was mentioned to the participants that that they could speak freely during the conversation
since the objectives of the recording sessions were to analyze authentic speech interactions
between the participants. In other words, the intention was to record “interactions that would
have happened anyway, whether or not a researcher was around to record it” (Cameron 20).
The However, even though these conversations might have been casual and would have
happened anyway, it is likely that each conversation has been influenced by the participants’
knowledge of a recording device which would record their (private) conversation. Cameron
argues that “[t]here is also the question of how a researcher’s presence may affect other
people’s behavior. Researchers of talk-face what the sociolinguist William Labov … called
the ‘observer’s paradox’: ideally, [it is important to] observe how people behave when they
are not being observed” (20). As it would have been unethical to record the conversations of
the participants without them knowing of this and it would hardly be possible to record the
conversation without the presence of the researcher, it seemed like the most logical solution to
record these conversations when the researcher would take the role of a participant observer.
The only difference, with regard to the authenticity of the recording methods, is that the
researcher took a leading role in securing the date and time of the informal dinners, making
sure that these would actually take place and that they would take place with the right
research participants (enough research participants from varying nationalities and language
backgrounds). The researcher chose to take part in all three of the conversations because she
wanted to make sure that the participants would feel comfortable enough to speak when they
knew that their conversation would be recorded. During each conversation, the researcher
tried not to draw attention to herself too much, leaving the participants to take the lead in the
conversation. As a researcher it seemed important to monitor the conversations and make sure
that no technical problems with the voice recorder would occur. Thus, the presence of the
researcher in all of the conversations seemed a logical but also a difficult role to take on since
the researcher had to remain objective and neutral even though she was aware of what she
would be investigating. However, when one wants to become “a participant observer,
according to Spradley, one comes to a social situation with two purposes: (1) to engage in
activities appropriate to the situation and (2) to observe the activities, people, and physical
aspects of the situation” (54). In this case the researcher who acted as an “insider and
outsider” during the conversations had many things in common with the participants, i.e.,
31
having been an exchange student herself and being a non-native speaker of English herself.
In addition, personal and general information about the students’ linguistic and cultural
backgrounds, English proficiency levels, attitudes towards native and non-native speaker(s)
and varieties of English spoken by different groups of speakers (native as well as non-native)
were collected after each recording session via a short questionnaire. The students filled out
these questionnaires at the end of each recording session. The questionnaires consisted of
open questions and one closed question which was related to the English proficiency levels of
the participants. This last question was related to how the students would assess their spoken
English whereby they could choose between several options which they thought best
described their English proficiency level. Other questions that were asked can be found in the
Appendix at the end of this document, where the questionnaires of the participants have been
included.
Some questions were included to assess the students’ command of different languages,
which would come of use when transcribing the code switching utterances that would appear
in the conversations. These questions were also included in order to show to what extent the
participants would see English as an important language of communication and how they
would feel about speaking to native and non-native speakers. Several questions were taken
out of the surveys which were not meant for the Dutch participants and the native speakers of
English. This was done because some of these questions did not need to be answered by these
participants as they did not relate to their linguacultural background, or were redundant.
Several questions arose during the recording sessions of the last group which were added to
the questionnaire at the end of the recording session and were written down under the
questionnaire.
However, due to time limitations and the modification of the hypotheses to match the
empirical and qualitative character of this study, most of the questions asked in the
questionnaire will not be taken into account when discussing and analyzing the findings that
were made in the different conversations. The questions relating to the backgrounds of the
speakers are presented in charts which can be found in the next section of this chapter. These
questions will, if necessary, be taken into account or referred to in the results and discussion
chapter. As for the last group, the last four questions which were added to the questionnaire
will be taken into account in the analysis of the native speaker conversations regarding several
code switching utterances. The individual questionnaires are presented in the Appendix at the
end of this document.
32
In addition, information on the linguacultural backgrounds of these participants was collected
via the questionnaires that were filled out by each participant after each recording session.
The charts below present information on the abbreviations, nationalities and linguacultural
background of the speakers from the different groups.
The information in this chart was elicited from the questionnaires that were filled out
by the participants. As mentioned before, not all the questions that have been incorporated in
the questionnaires will be taken into account with the analysis of the code switching
utterances. The questions relating to the backgrounds of the speakers will be taken into
account in the results and discussion chapter and will be presented here in the form of a chart
that contains the following information on the participants: abbreviation, age, nationality,
native language(s), proficiency in other language (s) and rate of spoken English. G1/G2/G3
Mf is used to denote the researcher in the charts that are presented in this study.
Group G1
ABBREVIATION
AGE
NATIONALITY
NATIVE
LANGUAGE
(S)
OTHER
LANGUAGES?
RATE
SPOKEN
ENGLISH
HOW
LONG
IN NL?
G1 Nm
26
Canadian
English
Dutch (basics)
-
2 years
G1 Pm
21
Northern Irish
(British)
English
French [and] a small
bit of Dutch
-
8
months
G1 Rm
22
Dutch
Dutch
English, German
good
-
G1 Nf
25
Israeli
Hebrew
English and some
Dutch
very good
2 years
G1 Mm
28
Italian
Italian
English; Spanish
(basic)
good
4 years
G1 Sf
25
Spanish
Spanish
English
average
G1 Gm
27
Spanish
Spanish
English
between good
and average
8
months
1 year
G1 Mf
23
Dutch
Dutch
English, French
German French,
German
very good
-
33
The questions relating to the abbreviation, age, nationality and native language(s) have been
asked in order to understand the code switching instances that have been found in the
conversation. Having knowledge of someone’s nationality and native language(s) are essential
elements that need to be known in order to conduct this research. Furthermore, it is important
to know which other languages are spoken by the participants to relate the code switching
utterances they produce with the information they have provided in their questionnaires on
their linguacultural background. Furthermore, the question with respect to their proficiency
level of English has been asked and assessed by the participants themselves because it would
be interesting to see to what extent the participants would use English as the language of
communication instead of switching to their own or another language when they experience
difficulties in expressing themselves in English. In other words, this question has been asked
to see if there is a connection between their ability to speak English (that which they have
indicated themselves according to the classification of very good-good-average-poor-very
poor in the questionnaire) and that which they show to do during the conversation.
Furthermore, the length of their stay in the Netherlands might also say something about their
proficiency in Dutch, which is something that will be discussed in the analysis chapter of this
research where the occurrence of Dutch might be related to the code switching utterances
which encompass Dutch cultural concepts.
34
Group G2
ABBREVIATION
AGE
NATIONALITY
NATIVE
OTHER
RATE
HOW
LANGUAGE
LANGUAGES?
SPOKEN
LONG
ENGLISH
IN NL?
average
8
(S)
G2 Lf
20
Latvian
Latvian
Russian
months
G2 Saf
22
Dutch
Dutch
English
very good
-
G2 Vf
21
Latvian
Latvian
English, Russian
average
3
months
G2 Sf
21
Turkish
Turkish
-
average
2,5
months
G2 If
21
Latvian
Latvian
Russian, English
good
3
months
G2 Fm
24
Dutch
Dutch
English, French,
average
-
English, a little bit
Between
3,5/4
Dutch and German
very good
months
German
G2 Cf
20
Turkish
Turkish
and good
G2 Mf
23
Dutch
Dutch
English, French,
Very good
-
German
With respect to the first group, it is important to know which other languages, besides their
native language(s), are spoken by the participants to relate the code switching utterances they
produce with the information they have provided on their linguacultural backgrounds. With
regard to the hypothesis that has been formulated for the first group, it is especially interesting
to know whether the length of the stay of the participants in the Netherlands might also say
something about their proficiency in Dutch, which is something that will be discussed in the
results and discussion chapter of this research where the occurrence of Dutch will be related
to the code switching instances that are produced in Dutch.
35
Group G3
ABBREVIATION
AGE
NATIONALITY
NATIVE
OTHER
RATE
HOW
LANGUAGE
LANGUAGES?
SPOKEN
LONG
ENGLISH
IN NL?
-
9
(S)
20
G3 Ff
English
English and
Spanish
Bengali
21
G3 Cm
English
English
months
very basic French
-
9
months
21
G3 Cf
American
English
Some French
-
3
months
22
G3 Af
English
English
French, German
-
9
months
20
G3 Pm
Irish
English
Some Irish
-
9
months
20
G3 Bm
Irish
English
Irish (Gaelic), basic
-
9
French and Dutch
23
G3 Mf
Dutch
Dutch
English, French,
months
Very good
-
German
For the analysis of code switching utterances that occur in this group, it is essential to take
several answers to the questions that were asked in the questionnaires into consideration.
What is essential to note, however, is that especially those four questions which emerged
during the recording session and which have been added to the questionnaire at the end of the
session are important questions to take into consideration in the analysis of some code
switches that occur in this conversation. These are the following questions:

From which region/city are you?

Do you speak a particular (regional) variety of English?

Do you feel any difficulty understanding other native speakers of English who speak their own variety
of English or a specific English dialect?

Do you feel that you have been influenced by other varieties of English and that you adopted some
linguistic elements of these other varieties of English in your own speech?
36
It is essential to know the answers to these questions because, as will become apparent from
the code switching utterances that appear in this group. Besides the several switches that are
made to Dutch, this conversation mostly contains code switches to other varieties of English.
Thus, knowing the answers to these aforementioned questions is an essential component of
this analysis as we are dealing with the analysis of native speaker varieties of English and
would like to find out what types of code switches to other regional or dialectal varieties of
English are to be found. The analysis of code switches in this group will thus mainly focus on
the use of lexical references which present themselves via single code switches and lexical
idioms that contain cultural references to other varieties of English. In other words, a speaker
can display another person’s cultural identity by using lexemes or idiomatic sayings which
belong to an English variety that belongs to a co-participant´s cultural identity. As we want to
find evidence for the hypothesis and want to find out if code switches to other varieties of
English take a prominent role in this conversation, we will limit ourselves with a discussion
on code switching to other varieties of English.
3.4 The Selection and Processing of Data
During the recording sessions that took place, the students generally seemed to be at ease with
the presence of a voice recorder. One of the reasons for this might be related to the
researcher’s role in the conversation. Spradley has made a classification of different levels of
participation according to the “degree of involvement and type of participation” (58). When
analyzing the role of the researcher during the three conversations, some differences can be
observed between the levels of participant engagement. One can see a clear difference in the
researcher’s role when comparing the first two conversations with the third conversation. In
the first two conversations the researcher acted more as an active participant by “[seeking] to
do what other people are doing, not merely to gain acceptance, but to learn the cultural rules
for behavior” by engaging in conversation and speaking on a same level as the participants
when talking about personal experiences (Spradley 60). The third conversation shows to have
a more “moderate participation” as “the ethnographer seeks to maintain a balance between
being an insider and an outsider, between participation and observation” (Spradley 60). In this
case, the researcher was more reserved in this conversation and did not participate as actively
here as in the first two recording sessions. The reason for this moderate participation can be
related to the idea that the researcher might have been more of an outsider in this group in
comparison to the role she had in the other groups. In other words, the third group consisted
37
of all native speakers which, as the researcher is not a native speaker herself, made it more
difficult for the researcher to follow their conversations. In addition, the researcher felt that
this group was less open to outsiders than the other groups had been, especially when
compared to the second group where two of the participants were acquainted to the
researcher. As the researcher took part in all the conversations, it is important to have some
personal background knowledge of the researcher herself and to be concerned with her own
multilingual capacities. For this reason, she is also seen as one of the participants in each
group and has also filled out a questionnaire which has been included in the appendix.
The first group seemed to be reserved in the beginning of the conversation but
gradually opened up in the course of the conversation. They discussed personal topics, but
mostly participated in discussions about things that went on in their daily lives. The second
group was a quiet group at first. The Dutch mentors were leading the conversation most of the
time because some of the international students seemed really timid and reserved. Being
present as a researcher during this conversation, it seemed that their timidness could not solely
be blamed on the fact that they were consciously aware of the recording device. Indeed, it
seemed that the students were not that talkative themselves as I learned from the Dutch
mentors who had organized several casual dinners with these students before. However, also
in this conversation the students began to interact more when the conversation progressed.
They eventually started to discuss and interact more when they initiated several topics on the
resemblances and differences between their own countries and the Netherlands. The
participants in the last conversation generally seemed to feel at ease. They were exuberant in
their speech; laughing, joking while they were discussing personal topics. They did not feel
restrained in any way as they were interacting openly towards each other and did not restrain
themselves from using swear words in their speech.
After the recording sessions had taken place, the recorded material was checked for
sound quality and each conversation was scanned to select fragments that contained code
switching utterances. Although it is assumed that code switching can be done purposely or
unconsciously, this study specifically focuses on the aspect of conscious code switching since
it aims to shed light on the motivations for code switching, an aspect which is more likely to
be related to a conscious awareness of the act of switching to different codes. Only those
fragments, from each conversation, which contain genuine examples of code switches were
transcribed. Thus, summing up words in different codes or purposely indicating what a word
is in language X or Y when discussing the differences and resemblances between different
38
cultures are not seen as examples of code switches because these linguistic utterances
undermine the authenticity of this study. Therefore, in each conversation, code switching
utterances were selected and transcribed using the following criteria:
 The code switches will have to present themselves in the form of single word
switches, established borrowings and lexical idioms
 The code switches will have to denote cultural concepts
 The code switches need to be authentic
 In some cases, several words and sentences will be transcribed before or after the CS.
This depends on the context of the fragment. To make the contents of the situation in the
fragment more understandable, the researcher chose to transcribe several lines or words
before and after the CS. There are no set rules for this as it depends on the context of the
fragment.
In the first group, seven authentic fragments of code switches have been selected and
transcribed from this recording session and were given titles that reflect the contents of the
fragments: Turkish Kebab, Italian Heritage, Housing, Allergies, Dutch ESN Trips, Skydiving
and Bungee-Jumping in Holland and Bier Cantus. They have been selected because of the
occurrence of lexical items which are presented in single word switches, established
borrowings and lexical idioms which function as cultural references to the linguacultural
backgrounds of the participants. These fragments are mostly related to the discussion of
student activities which are organized via ESN, doing adventurous sports such as bungeejumping and skydiving, and in some cases, such as in the Italian Heritage fragment, a more
serious discussion presents itself, where cultural aspects from someone’s culture are
discussed. From the seven selected fragments, there are five representations of single word
switches whereas the other two fragments, Italian Heritage and Allergies, are examples where
established borrowings do occur. The fragments Italian Heritage, Dutch ESN Trips, Skydiving
and Bungee jumping in Holland and Bier Cantus will be discussed in greater detail since these
present a clear picture of what kind of code switching utterances occur in other code
switching fragments of the conversation. They reflect other people’s cultural identities via
references which are made of concepts that are present in the Italian heritage and the Dutch
culture. Above all, these fragments have been chosen because they will assist in answering the
hypotheses that were formulated for this group. The other code switching fragments are not
discussed in this study but are included in the appendix at the end of this thesis.
39
As for the second group, eleven fragments have been selected with respect to the
occurrence of lexical items that are presented in single word switches, established borrowings
and lexical idioms which present themselves as cultural references to the linguacultural
backgrounds of the informants. Each fragment will be presented with a title which suits the
topic that is being discussed in the particular fragment. The following fragments have been
selected and transcribed: Dutch Cuisine, Dutch Higher Education, Dutch Place Names, Vodka
and Raki, Tosti Pancake, Pancakes for Dessert, Sandwich Fillings, Cultural Concepts,
Hutspot, Stereotypes, Dutch Sweets and Queen’s day. Because many of these fragments
contain elements of code switches, we will only be concerned with the four most interesting
fragments that contain code switching utterances. The four fragments Dutch Cuisine,
Stereotypes, Dutch Place Names and Sandwich Fillings present a clear picture of what kind of
code switching instances occur in the other fragments. These eleven fragments contain
examples of single word switches and established borrowings. Nine of these code switching
utterances are uttered in Dutch, whereas the other two fragments, Vodka and Raki and
Cultural Concepts, are examples of established borrowings of the lexemes raki and vodka.
The cultural concept fragment contains the code switch dürüm, which can also be regarded as
a borrowing. However, as the majority of the code switches which are used by international as
well as local students are in Dutch, we will only be concerned with a discussion on the code
switching utterances that are presented in Dutch and refer to those Dutch cultural aspects
which reflect aspects from the Dutch culture. Especially references to Dutch drinks, food and
festivities are common in the conversation. Besides, especially the Turkish participant (G2
Cf) is very active in the conversation and in a number of occasions she also uses Dutch words
to clarify aspects related to food, place names and education. There are only several occasions
where non-Dutch participants switch to their native tongue to express a cultural concept
which belongs to their national culture. This is done in the fragments where raki and vodka,
presented in established borrowings, are mentioned as the national drinks of Turkey and
Latvia and where dürüm is mentioned as an equivalent to the Dutch pancake by the Turkish
speaker G2 Cf. As only four fragments will be discussed in the next chapter, the other
fragments are included in the appendix at the end of this document.
Four fragments were selected and transcribed from the third conversation: Scottish
wee, Dutch Food, Housing and Dutch Higher Education. In this conversation, however, only
one code switching fragment is discussed in greater detail, in the next chapter, as this is the
40
only fragment which represents the act of code switching to another variety of English. The
other fragments are included in the appendix at the end of this document.
In addition, the next chapter, which revolves around the results of code switching elements
that are found in each conversation, reflects on the types of code switches that were found in
each conversation and discusses these in relation to the context in which they occur.
Messelink argues, based on Ehlich et al.’s viewpoints, that “the recordings of the
conversations are a selection and will thus never give an entire picture of the discourse” as
each conversation is subjected to internal and external influences (31). Thus, with this
research Koole and ten Thije argue the following:
that the aim is to “reconstruct a functional pragmatic approach to discourse … by
analyzing an approach that seeks to reconstruct the activities speaker(s) and hearer(s)
perform when they interact. The analysis takes the concrete utterances as a startingpoint to ask three related questions” [which are essential to ask in relation to the
selection and analysis of the recorded fragments in this research]: “‘What is going
on’ in a particular fragment. What is said’ involves the verbalization of discourse;
‘What is known’ by the interactors. This question is related to the mental activities
and knowledge structures which can be reconstructed from the interaction.” (73)
The first two questions regarding the analysis of the code switching fragments will, most
likely, bring us closer to the question of which types of code switches are used and why they
have been used. The third question can be related to the linguistic (multilingual) and cultural
knowledge of the participants, in other words, to what extent the participants are able to make
references to different cultures by incorporating code switches in their L1 or Ln languages.
3.5 Transcription Conventions
The selected fragments were all been transcribed with the transcription program Exmaralda.
The information on the Exmaralda instruction website was used to define the transcription
conventions that were used for the transcription process. It should be taken into account that
since this research focuses on the analysis of code switches performed by the participants of
the conversations; this study has been less concerned with the delivery of a detailed and
meticulous transcription of the selected fragments. In other words, attention has mostly be
paid to the contents of verbal communication and the translation of foreign speech utterances
(code switches which need to be translated). The following transcription symbols, presented
41
in the chart below, are based on a combination of the Exmaralda transcription conventions
and Kotthoff’s conventions on laughter. Some symbols, as part of these transcription
conventions, were been left out because they were not considered to be essential elements for
the objectives of this research. As only non-verbal communication is the objective of this
analysis, only two tiers (speaking lines) were used per speaker, in the Exmaralda transcription
program, to indicate that what the speaker said and, in some cases, to translate the foreign
speech produced by the speaker. The translation tier shows the English translation of an
utterance produced in a foreign language (a language other than English). As the participants
in the conversations often spoke at the same time, places where overlapping speech did occur
were indicated in the translation. However, these utterances of overlapping speech were not
accurately indicated with the use of the merge and split applications in Exmaralda (functions
in Exmaralda which are used to denote speech overlaps in conversations) because it is not an
essential element in this study. In addition, no capital letters were used in the transcriptions.
Transcription Conventions
.!
Utterance final
,
Continuing intonation
?
Rising intonation (question)
()
Longer inaudible phrase
(word)
Dubious hearing/good guess
(
Inaudible word or phrase or unidentified speaker
)
(( ))
Descriptions of sounds, explanation e.g. ((laughs))
/
Repair
HAHA
Loud Laughter
HEHE
Weak Laughter
3.7 Reliability and Validity
The present study is an example of a qualitative research project that has been conducted via
the ethnographical research method. This research method is a term invented by sociologist
Dorothy E. Smith. It is described by de Vault and McCoy as “the empirical investigation of
linkages among local settings of everyday life, organizations and translocal processes of
42
administration and governance” (751). These linkages constitute, according to Smith, a
“complex field of coordination and control that…is identified as the ruling relations” (qtd. in
De Vault and McCoy 751). Within the ethnographic research method, the objectives are to
analyze and construct an image of “cultural groups where…participant observation is seen as
one of the data collection methods” (Boeije 263). The objective of this particular research
was to record authentic, verbal conversations which had not been influenced beforehand by
the researcher or any other person or situation. Within this ethnographic approach, the
“researcher’s aim is not to generalize about the group of people interviewed, but to find and
describe social processes that have generalizing effects” (de Vault and McCoy 753). By
analyzing the discourse that takes place, the researcher is able to “identify [and decipher] the
translocal relations and discourse [processes] that are shaping the informants”…and the
intercultural discourse that takes place within these international groups (De Vault and
McCoy 755). This research can be described as qualitative since its objectives are to
“describe, interpret and clarify the behaviors, experiences, practices and ‘products’ of the
informants by analyzing these aspects via methods which have hardly any influence on the
natural surroundings” (Boeije 253). The researcher, in the role of participant observer, has
taken part in all the conversations, but, on the other hand, has always kept in mind that her
role within the discourse was to remain objective. In other words, the aim of this research has
been to record authentic, verbal conversations, which have not been influenced beforehand by
the researcher but where the researcher has taken part in the research groups in order to
“collect data and to analyze the discourse from an emic perspective” (Boeije 261). In addition,
“purposive sampling” has been applied in this research and research participants have thus
been “selected on several characteristics” (Boeije 269). Transcriptions have been made of
several fragments of the conversations and as Messelink argues, in support of Ehlich et al.’s
viewpoint, “the recordings of the conversations are a selection and will thus never give an
entire picture of the discourse” as each conversation can be subjected to internal and external
influences (31). It can be argued, however, that even though the settings have slightly been
pre-arranged by the researcher (the international students were asked to get together), the
interactions of the participants during casual conversations give a fair representation of
reality. The informants did not seem obstructed in their speech because of the different
situational and contextual setting of their conversations. During the conversation, the
informants interacted openly with each other, were not afraid to ask questions, laugh at each
other’s jokes and, in some cases, several participants felt free enough to talk about private
43
matters. Therefore, this research has a large internal validity. Its validity has also increased by
the use of triangulation: not only do the recorded conversations give insights into the
workings of intercultural discourse but also the questionnaires, which were filled out by the
students, give a clear overview of the linguistic and personal backgrounds of each participant.
The combination of different data (fragments and questionnaires) will provide more insight
into intercultural discourse strategies. In addition, member validation will increase the validity
of the research because the participants will be asked to give feedback on the interpretation of
the data by the researcher or to be of help to the researcher regarding the translation of the
linguistic code switching utterances produced in the fragments. The external validity of this
research is rather small since the analysis and conclusions which can be drawn from this
research will only account for the specific groups that have been researched. What can be
argued, however, is that it is most likely that if this research was duplicated with similar
groups of people, the research would produce similar results.
44
4. Results and Discussion
4.1 Group G1: Native and Non-Native Speakers
The following discussion will revolve around findings that were made in four fragments of
the conversation: Italian Heritage, Dutch ESN Trips, Skydiving and Bungee-jumping in
Holland and Bier Cantus. These will be discussed in greater detail since they present a clear
picture of the kind of code switches that occur in the conversation. Above all, the selection of
these fragments will facilitate the answering of the hypothesis.
The Italian Heritage example is the only example, out of these four fragments, which
contains an established borrowing and which is used here to reflect the identity of the Italian
speaker. This fragment displays a discussion between the Italian, Spanish female and
Northern Irish speaker and the researcher. The other switches are examples of Dutch switches
which are used by native and non-native speakers. The Dutch code switches will first be
discussed here.
When the participants introduce a discussion on ESN (Erasmus Student Network) trips,
they start to engage in a discussion about several places in the Netherlands where ESN trips
have taken place. ESN has organized these trips to get the foreign students acquainted with
the urban and rural areas of the Netherlands. Thus, code switching occurs when Dutch place
names and regions are pronounced in the excerpts here below. Interesting, however, is that
these Dutch place names are pronounced with a Dutch pronunciation, as illustrated in the
following excerpts. In this case, it seems as if the speakers prefer to pronounce the names of
the cities of Eindhoven and Groningen and the regions of Zeeland and Brabant with a Dutch
pronunciation of these lexical items. This is what Grosjean calls “code switching in a
monolingual mode” where the decision is made by “the speakers to code-switch [instead of]
adapting the word phonologically into the base language, thus borrowing them in” (67). It
seems that pronouncing place names in a language other than the language it has originally
come from seems a bit strange. Furthermore, in this fragment, the researcher also switches to
her native language when stating that she is originally from Nijmegen. When the researcher
utters the name of the city with a Dutch pronunciation of this lexeme, she consequently
displays her Dutch cultural identity to the other participants. In addition, there can be other
motivations for using the Dutch pronunciation of this city such as expressing a common
identity with the other Dutch participant from the group or because there is simply no
45
equivalence for this word and the researcher chooses to maintain her speech. As for the
international students, it seems as if they pronounce these words in Dutch to be part of the
Dutch culture and to show a form of socialization. In all cases, these code switches are
examples of intra-sentential code switching.
Dutch ESN Trips
..
866 [24:54.2]
G1 Nm [m]
zeeland?
G1 Pm [m]
went on that?
G1 Sf [f]
oh
it was the b
rabant (hoef)
which one, the (hitchhiking)?
.
G1 Nm [m]
867 [24:56.2]
eindhoven?
868 [24:58.2]
869 [25:00.2]
brabant ok.
((mumbling))
G1 Pm [m]
it was uh
this is back in october.
so
G1 Nf [f]
unds like
G1 Mm [m]
(
G1 Sf [f]
(
[182]
) thinking about that
yea
((mumbling))
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
)
h
we started/ we started to yeah like ei
ndhoven and den bosch.
shit.
where are you
..
872 [25:06.2]
873 [25:08.2]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
ah
from?
G1 Sf [f]
discover weekend yeah.
in holland?
ha that is like discover (week).
discover ho
lland.
G1 Mf (researcher)
uh
[f]
..
874 [25:10.2]
875 [25:12.2]
G1 Pm [m]
46
G1 Nf [f]
ah it's not
G1 Sf [f]
nah i have been/ i haven't been there. yeah all my friends
G1 Mf (researcher)
[f]
nijmegen.
no
..
876 [25:14.2]
G1 Nf [f]
877 [25:16.2]
say that
G1 Sf [f]
where there.
yes, yes
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
(
879 [25:20.2]
880 [25:22.2]
G1 Pm [m]
the weekend abroad was in
it's closer to
june
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
yeah?
no i went to the weekend abro
ad.
..
G1 Pm [m]
) no he was not the
it's like an hour by train.
878 [25:18.2]
G1 Rm [m]
in brabant?
881 [25:24 882 [25:26 883 [25:26. 884 [25:26.6
.2]
.2]
4]
]
885 [25:26.8]
886 [25:27. 887 [25:2
0]
7.2]
groning
en?
The phenomenon of pronouncing place names in the original language can also be seen in the
Skydiving and Bungee jumping in Holland fragment where several participants are engaged in
a discussion on skydiving and bungee-jumping in the Netherlands.
In addition, Scheveningen, a popular town among tourists which is located next to the
North Sea, is mentioned by G1 Nf when she observes that bungee jumping can be done in in
this town. The speaker attempts to pronounce the Dutch name of the town and thus displays a
cultural aspect which is characteristic to the Netherlands.
Skydiving and Bungee jumping in Holland
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
1116 [32:56.5] 1117 [32:58.5] 1118 [33:00.0]
sch/scheveningen
oh you're going to do it there?
1121 [33:06.5]
1119 [33:02.5]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
1120 [33:04.5]
(bun gee-jumping)
no the/ the bu n gee-jumping
d o yo u kno w an y o t her p lace ?
there is another one?
yeah exactly.
47
By keeping the Dutch pronunciation of this town in her speech, it seems that the speaker
wants to show a communicative efficiency in Dutch where she wants to pronounce this
lexeme with the Dutch pronunciation of this word. By doing this, it seems as if she wants to
communicate some Dutch to the Dutch and non-Dutch participants of the group (Messelink
21). “This is known as a form of socialization,” as Messelink observes (21). What is more, the
speaker might also have kept the Dutch pronunciation of this lexeme because there is no
equivalent lexeme or pronunciation for Scheveningen. Pronouncing these place names with a
Dutch pronunciation of the word because there is no English equivalent for this word
therefore does not seem to be a conscious choice. A choice, however, can be made in the case
of the Dutch city Den Haag, which is also known as The Hague. These Dutch place names,
which are used in this particular fragment, are used as forms of inter-sentential code
switching.
Furthermore, Texel, one of the Dutch islands, is used within intra-sentential code
switching. It is mentioned by G1 Mm in a discussion that revolves around another
adventurous sport, namely skydiving. G1 Nf and G1 Rm participate in this discussion. In the
last excerpt, the Dutch participant G1 Rm indicates the way in which the lexeme Texel needs
to be pronounced since both the Israeli and the Italian participants pronounce a /k/ sound in
the name Texel, instead of an /s/ sound which is commonly used in the Netherlands. This
lexeme is then repeated by G1 Nf and G1 Mm. The code switching done by the international
students can thus be seen as a form of repetition in which the lexeme is repeated to show that
they have understood how this word should be pronounced. Furthermore, this repetition can
be seen as a form of socialization whereby the international students try to improve their
Dutch language skills. The Dutch participant, on the other hand, seems to take the role of a
pronunciation teacher whereby he displays his Dutch cultural identity via the pronunciation
lesson he offers to speakers G1 Nf and G1 Mm. Next to maintaining his identity, the Dutch
participant might also want to share his identity with the Dutch researcher by keeping the
Dutch pronunciation for this word.
In addition, participant G1 Sf utters the collocation bier cantus, in the form of intrasentential code switching, to show knowledge of Dutch cultural student activities. The lexical
items bier and cantus can be viewed separately but are considered as a collocation in this
particular fragment because these words only express the notion of this student activity when
they are seen next to each other. These lexemes can be used separately but in this particular
48
fragment the lexical items refer to an activity consisting of singing and beer drinking amongst
students. This is a typical Dutch phenomenon which is often organized by Dutch student
societies. The students engage in a discussion about this subject because ESN is also known
to regularly organize these evenings for them. G1 Sf has been on one of these occasions and
comments on the following bier cantus that is about to be held. The participant expresses this
concept with a Dutch pronunciation of the collocation bier cantus.
Bier Cantus
1715 [44:31.6]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
1716 [44:35.5]
(todos muy bien).
if we go to bier cantus, we die in bier
cantus man.
The names of urban and region places in the Netherlands and the lexical item bier cantus
could have been used for several reasons. What can, first of all, be argued is that the
international students are most likely conscious of their Dutch pronunciation of these lexical
items. With regard to the pronunciation of Texel both G1 Nf and G1 Mm seem to
accommodate to G1 Rm’s pronunciation of the word whereby they “alter their speech to
resemble that of” the Dutch native speaker G1 Rm (Cogo and Dewey 70). According to
Grosjean “[d]eciding whether to say the proper noun in its original form or adapt it to the
language being spoken will depend on many factors, but the central factors are clear
communication and not distancing oneself too much from interlocutors” (67). In this case, it
does not seem that the speakers who utter these code switches are distancing themselves from
the other interlocutors since it is most likely that everyone in the group is acquainted with the
Dutch pronunciation of these words. They are rather uttering these Dutch cultural concepts
and thus automatically displaying part of the Dutch cultural identity. In other words, it seems
as though these code switches can be explained as “the need of wanting to learn a new
language or to improve a foreign or second language as a form of socialization” (Messelink
21). Additionally, they can function as “a form of creating new identities, as mentioned by
Ellwood, or, as “a way of … denying one’s identity” because there is no equivalent word or
because there will be a ‘strange’ pronunciation of these words in the speaker’s mother tongue,
as Rampton observes (qtd. in Messelink 21).
49
With regard to the first group, the first fragment that will be discussed here relates to two
examples of established borrowings which have been found in the Italian Heritage fragment.
The lexical items colosseum, forum and gladiator are examples of established borrowings
which are used within intra-sentential code switching and are uttered by the researcher and
speakers G1 Mm, G1 Sf and G1 Pm as illustrated in the following excerpt:
Italian Heritage
..
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
422 [09:29.9]
423 [09:31.9]
so we/ we went there with our Latin class , so we went to see all the
424 [09:33.9]
425 [09:35.9]
426 [09:37.9]
427 [09:39.9] 428 [09:41.9]
so the forum?
nice
you went
mm
the architectural
yeah
the colosseum
..
429 [09:43.9]
430 [09:45.9]
inside? did you go insid e the colosseum?
when
yeah, yeah I did
..
435 [09:55.9] 436 [09:57.9]
is (that) they also open the
underneath the colosseum there is a
like the
..
437 [09:59.9] 438 [10:01.9]
439 [10:03.9]
is that where the gladiators go t read y a nd st u ff
nice uh like area
yeah yeah
These lexical items are examples of established borrowings which have been borrowed from
Latin and have later been incorporated into the English, Dutch and Italian language. Although
these lexical items are considered to be lexemes that occur in the lexicon of these languages
and are used by the participants in an intercultural ELF conversation, these items have been
borrowed from Latin into these different guest languages. The OED Online observes the
following on the etymology of the lexeme:
colosseum [emphasis in the original] derives from the post-classical Latin coliseum
[emphasis in the original], as it was used in the twelfth century and as coliseum
[emphasis in the original], as it was known in the fourteenth century. It was used as a
noun of neuter of classical Latin colossēus, (adjective) [emphasis in the original]
meaning gigantic, colossal. In Italian, the lexeme colosseo [emphasis in the original]
50
and the extinct form coliseo [emphasis in the original] were used in previous times to
denote the colosseum in Rome.
Currently, colosseo is still an existing and commonly applied form in the Italian language
(OED Online). According to the OED Online, the form in which this word is currently used
“has derived from the sixteenth century where it referred to the Colossus of Rhodes. The
application of the word to the amphitheater of Vespasian may be due to the location of the
Colossus of the Emperor Nero near to the amphitheater. The building was originally called
simply classical Latin amphitheātrum.” It is difficult to comment on the date when this
lexeme was borrowed into the English language but it can be observed that it might have
occurred around 1600 when it was first used in a textbook called The Romane historie written
by T. Livius of Padua (transl. Philemon Holland), as mentioned by the OED online.
In addition, the established borrowing forum is mentioned by the Italian speaker G1
Mm. This is a lexeme which denotes the “public place or market-place of a city or the place of
assembly for judicial and other public business in Rome” and is a word of Latin origin (OED
Online). According to the OED online, the lexeme forum first appeared in the English
textbook Abbreuiacion of Cron by John Capgrave, “a prior of bishop’s lynn, theologian, and
historian, in 1464.” Furthermore, the lexeme gladiator is explained as “a person who, during
ancient Roman times, fought with a sword or other weapon at public shows [and is] usually a
slave or captive trained for the purpose” (OED online). In addition, it is stated on the OED
online that the lexeme gladiator is a Latin term which has its origins in the “lexeme gladius, a
term used by the Romans to denote a sword.” In addition, it is mentioned in this source that
this lexeme first appeared in the English language in 1541 where it was quoted in Thomas
Paynell’s translation of C. Durantinuse Felicius’ Conspiracie of Lucius Catiline.
It seems as if speaker G1 Mm has introduced a discussion on aspects relating to Italian
cultural heritage by asking the researcher if she has been to the forum when she paid a visit to
Rome. With this question, speaker G1 Mm introduces the topic of Roman architectural
buildings which is a topic that relates to the Latin/Italian language. By uttering this lexeme,
speaker G1 Mm emphasizes his Italian descent which shows that he is a member of the Italian
cultural community. This word is used in a sentence in which he expresses his interest in the
researcher’s trip to Rome and might thus also be used here because he knows that the
researcher is aware of the meaning of this word for which he cannot find an English
equivalence. In this case, the speaker uses Latin/Italian as a means of expressing solidarity,
where he and the researcher both understand these lexical borrowings. The researcher
51
responds to G1 Mm’s question by replying that she has visited the colosseum when she was in
Rome. With this response, the researcher thus displays the national identity of speaker G1
Mm as she knows that he is familiar with this lexeme (a form of solidarity). The researcher
herself is familiar with this word as it is also used in the Dutch language, where these lexemes
are also spelled and known as forum and colosseum, as is the case in English. Speaker G1 Pm
engages in this discussion by asking if the gladiators got ready for their fights in a space
underneath the colosseum. In this example, speaker G1 Pm displays an aspect of speaker G1
Mm’s national and cultural identity by mentioning the word gladiator. With this, he seems to
make an effort to engage in the discussion about Italian heritage. Thus, this lexeme “is used as
a marker of solidarity” (Harding and Riley qtd. in Záňová) by switching to a lexical
borrowing which originally came from Latin, the language which the Romans, the previous
inhabitants of Italy, used to speak. In other words, the incorporation of this lexical borrowing
thus “reinforces the closeness of the relationship” between G1 Pm, the researcher and speaker
G1 Mm (Harding and Riley qtd. in Záňová).
In conclusion, having selected, transcribed and analyzed occurrences of eight
authentic fragments of code switches in this conversation, it can be argued that most of the
code switching instances in this group are expressed via single word switches which contain
cultural references that refer to the ethnic or national identities of the speakers. The four
fragments which have been discussed in detail are representations of code switching
utterances that occur in the entire conversation. In addition, these four fragments only slightly
confirms that which is stated in the first hypothesis that was formulated for this group because
there is only one example (Italian Heritage fragment) which functions as an example wherein
a participant displays his own cultural identity. This seems to imply that there is not much
need to display one’s cultural identity via the use of code switches.
Hypothesis 1.1
Because the first group has a great number of different nationalities where, in most cases,
there is only one representative for each nationality (with the exception of the Spanish and
Dutch participants), there might be more need to maintain and display one’s cultural identity
by using borrowings, single word switches and lexical idioms when speaking about aspects
that belong to one’s cultural identity.
52
The three Dutch fragments that have elaborately been discussed in this previous section, do
seem to confirm that which is stated in the second hypothesis that was formulated for this
group:
Hypothesis 1.2
As these students have, on average, been living in the Netherlands for a longer period than
the participants from the other groups (with the exception of the native Dutch speakers) and
are experiencing the Dutch student life on a daily basis, the participants in this group might
be more acquainted with the Dutch culture and therefore use the names of Dutch cultural
concepts, presented in single word switches, to refer to the Dutch cultural heritage, student
life and typical aspects of a Dutch identity.
What can additionally be said is that the occurrence of these switches or at least the
pronunciation of these switches with a Dutch accent might have been influenced by the length
of the participants’ stay in the Netherlands. These participants have been in the Netherlands
for longer than eight months, where some of them have been here for four years, some for two
years and others for eight months. Those that have been in the Netherlands for a longer period
of time have not all indicated that they speak this language on their questionnaire, whereas
others have indicated that they have little knowledge of the Dutch language. Nevertheless, it
can be argued is that the length of their stay has exposed them to the Dutch language and that
it might have been one of the reasons for the participants to use Dutch lexemes in this
conversation and to pronounce these words with a Dutch pronunciation. This hypothesis has
proven to be true since the fragments Dutch ESN Trips, Skydiving and Bungee-jumping in
Holland and Bier Cantus are representations of fragments in which Dutch, cultural concepts
are being discussed by participants who observe the Dutch culture from an etic perspective,
i.e., international students who discuss and comment on the perception of these Dutch,
cultural aspects. The Italian Heritage fragment shows the occurrence of lexical borrowings
which are being used by the Italian speaker himself, local Dutch students and international
students.
53
4.2 Group G2: Non-Native Speakers
The following analysis will discuss the occurrence of four single code switches in Dutch
where both the Dutch and international students make references to Dutch cultural concepts
by code switching to Dutch. Cultural references which denote Dutch drinks, foods, festivities
and geographical areas regularly occur in the code switching fragments of this conversation.
Four of these Dutch code switches will be presented and discussed here. The first example of
a Dutch code switch is uttered from an emic perspective by the Dutch mentors when start to
engage in a discussion on typical Dutch foods which are usually enjoyed in winter.
Dutch Cuisine
..
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
160 [05:20.0]
161 [05:22.0]
very, like typical to ea t in the winter mostly. people who say like
..
162 [05:24.0]
163 [05:26.0]
oh yeah it's winter so now we make like hutspot , stamppot, b ut i n
hotchpot mash pot
The lexemes hutspot and stamppot are single word switches which denote typical Dutch
dishes that belong to the traditional Dutch food culture. These lexemes are examples of intrasentential code switching. Because the Dutch students have organized a Dutch cultural food
and drinking night, it is does not come as a surprise that they use Dutch, culturally loaded
lexemes to denote Dutch cultural concepts. Even though these concepts might be translated
into English, finding a similar equivalent to convey the same meaning, remains difficult. It is
as Deghani says: “[t]o make the learning of a language possible, the student [in this case, the
non-Dutch participants,] [need] to be fully familiar with the cultural load of those words and
phrases to be able to find the closest possible equivalent for them” (1). Thus, the reason for
using these single word switches can be related to a form of emphasizing cultural concepts,
i.e., the need to convey a Dutch concept in order to inform the non-Dutch participants about
these cultural characteristics of the Dutch culture. Because the Dutch participant utters this
word in Dutch, it seems that she does not know the English equivalent for this concept or does
not want to use an equivalent for this concept because an equivalent can or simply does not
convey the same meaning. In addition, another motivation for using these Dutch concepts can
be related to the idea of communicating and expressing a common identity with other Dutch
participants. As a result, a sense of possessing a Dutch cultural identity is expressed here as
well (Záňová 20; 25). Communicating and expressing this common identity will also result in
54
the exclusion of the non-Dutch participants from this conversation since participant G2 Sf
does not explain what the differences are between these two dishes and what these typical
Dutch dishes consist of. Furthermore, the Dutch students give an example of a stereotype
which is commonly used by Dutch students in particular:
Stereotypes
1562 [50:13.6]
1563 [50:15.6]
yeah a bit
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
alternative, right?
..
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
1564 [50:17.6]
((chuckling))
1565 [50:19.6]
dat is waar
that is true
they always said i was a kakker.
posh person
1566 [50:21.6]
rechtse bal
a right-winged conservative posh person
no way!
1567 [50:23.6] 1568 [50:25.6] 1569 [50:27.6]
1570 [50:29.6]
mmm she has a negati ve stereo t yp e ab o ut me,
.. 1571 [50:31.6]
1572 [50:33.6]
1573 [50:35.6]
not necessarily negative! it's just a stereotype.
so.
The lexeme kakker is a generally well-known concept in Dutch society which is used to
denote a “young person who behaves and dresses as a conservative and bourgeois person”
(Coenders 197). This concept is, of course, also known in other languages and cultures.
Nevertheless, what makes this lexeme a cultural reference to an aspect within the Dutch
culture is the notion that its meaning is conveyed in one lexeme which is used in informal
contexts by Dutch people, making it an intrinsic concept of the Dutch language. This lexeme
is an example of a single intra-sentential code switch which is used by the Dutch speaker G2
Fm to refer to a Dutch cultural concept that does not have a specific equivalent in English.
Thus, it is used here to communicate a common identity between G2 Fm and G2 Saf whereby
the Dutch speakers seem to exclude the international students from their conversation. This is
also the case with the lexical idiomatic expression rechtse bal, an expression used to denote
someone who behaves in a conservative manner. This lexical idiom is an example of an intrasentential switch. The concept rechtse bal can rather be classified as a lexical idiom because it
is not to be taken literally since the meaning cannot be derived from looking at each word
separately (rechtse = right side; bal = ball), as is the case with collocations. It is more likely
that the Dutch participant G2 Fm does not know an equivalent for this concept in English and
is thus easier inclined to use the Dutch terminology. Just as with the previous lexeme, G2 Fm
55
seems to apply this concept to communicate a common identity and, in so doing, G2 Fm
excludes the international students from the conversation as they are not familiar with this
typical Dutch saying.
Additionally, there are also two interesting fragments where international students and
the Dutch researcher switch to Dutch. The first example revolves around a code switch to
Dutch which is performed by the researcher herself. In this fragment, the researcher asks the
international students about their place of residence. The researcher code switches to Dutch
when she utters the single word switch uithof (the university campus) when asking if the
students live here. She expresses this concept with a Dutch pronunciation of the lexeme. The
other instances of lexical word switches such as Zeist, Beneluxlaan and the Uithof, which has
been uttered again, are produced by the international students G2 If and G2 Cf who make a
good effort to pronounce these lexemes with a Dutch pronunciation. All these lexemes are
examples of single intra-sentential word switches to Dutch because the Dutch pronunciation
of these items have been maintained, which is often not the case with borrowings (Grosjean
(66-67). The Dutch pronunciation of the lexical item Uithof can be related to the need of the
researcher to maintain her Dutch pronunciation and the need to display a Dutch cultural
identity. In addition, it can also be used to introduce the topic of housing wherefore the name
of this Dutch campus does not have an equivalent term in any of the other languages
belonging to any of the international students. The international students, on the contrary,
could have chosen for the Dutch pronunciation of these lexemes because they want to portray
a communicative efficiency in Dutch whereby they want to convey a sense of belonging to the
Dutch student community in Utrecht. In is easier to take part in this community when they
“need or want to know [some Dutch]” in order to communicate some basic aspects of
information in this language to the Dutch and non-Dutch participants of the group (Messelink
21). “This is known as a form of socialization, as Messelink observes” (21).
Dutch Place Names
495 [14:45.7] 496 [14:47.7] 497 [14:49.7] 498 [14:51.7]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
499 [14:53.7]
500 [14:55.7]
mm
mm,
but do you all live at the uithof?
56
..
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
501 [14:57.7]
no
502 [14:59.7] 503 [15:01.7] 504 [15:03.7] 505 [15:05.7] 506 [15:07.7]
( )
( )
(uh it's a)
we live in zeist.
no
(
)
in zeist?
..
507 [15:09.7]
kilometers (to the uithof) . yeah (
509 [15:13.7]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
six
flat?
508 [15:11.7]
)
what's six kilometers?
510 [15:15.7] 511 [15:17.7] 512 [15:19.7] 513 [15:21.7]
from beneluxlaan to here .
The following fragment provides an example of Dutch food names which are expressed by
the international students in a discussion on Dutch foods which are daily used. The lexemes
vla and hagelslag are typical Dutch foods which are consumed by many Dutch inhabitants on
a daily basis. Hagelslag, explained as chocolate sprinkles, is something which is typical to the
Dutch sandwich eating culture. Vla, which is similar to pudding and custard, although it has a
more liquid texture than these two, is something which can be found in other cultures as well
where it is known under different names.
Sandwich Fillings
967 [30:28.2]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
968 [30:30.2]
969 [30:32.2]
yeah
vla? ((chuckling))
yeah
like it when i mix it with vla.
pudding/custard
970 [30:34.2]
971 [30:36.2]
972 [30:38.2]
but that is ( )
vla and hagelslag
it's really
pudding/custard and chocolate sprinkles
yeah but
many people do that.
..
973 [30:40.2]
974 [30:42.2]
975 [30:44.2]
go o d love it, what? (i don't kno w) how you say i t ho w d o yo u say
.. 976 [30:46.2]
977 [30:48.2]
978 [30:50.2]
it? hagelslag?
mmm ((chuckling) )
hagelslag.
so you can all speak a
The lexemes hagelslag and vla occur as single word switches and can be regarded as forms of
intra-sentential code switching. Reasons for displaying the notion of a Dutch cultural identity
via these culturally loaded terms could be owed to the act of wanting to belong to an identity
which is not considered to be your own. Because the non-Dutch participants would want to
“symbolize that [they are] part of a [the Dutch group] and [are] able to exert a group (e.g.
ethnic, cultural, national or regional) identity that comes together with this group
57
membership” (Wardhaugh 98). In other words, by using Dutch cultural references, the nonDutch participants seem to “accommodate” to the Dutch cultural dinner setting by
“converging” to the speech of the Dutch participants, i.e., using Dutch words, like their Dutch
co-participants, to denote Dutch foods (Cogo and Dewey, “Efficiency” 70). The use of code
switches is done consiously in that case. A form of solidarity is introduced whereby G2 Cf
code switches to Dutch. In this case, “by applying a change of language, a marker of
solidarity [is used] with the person she is talking to.” This reinforces the “closeness of the
relationship” between the international speakers and the Dutch students (Harding and Riley
qtd. in Záňová 22).
In conclusion, having selected, transcribed and analyzed twelve occurrences of code
switches in this conversation, it can be argued that most of the code switching instances in this
group are expressed via single code switches. Eleven fragments have been selected and
transcribed: Dutch Cuisine, Dutch Higher Education, Dutch Place Names, Vodka and Raki,
Tosti Pancake, Pancakes for Dessert, Sandwich Fillings, Cultural Concepts, Hutspot,
Stereotypes, Dutch Sweets and Queen’s day. From this selection, there is one fragment which
contains two examples of established borrowing, i.e., Vodka and Raki. Furthermore, the
Dutch Sweets and Queen’s day fragment shows an example of a lexical idiomatic switch in
Dutch. Moreover, the other nine fragments contain examples of single word switches where
all but one are examples of code switching to Dutch. Only four fragments from this
conversation have been discussed in greater detail because these fragments are a reflection of
the majority of code switches that occur in this conversation. In addition, these four fragments
have also been chosen because they will facilitate the process of answering the hypothesis that
is connected to this conversation. When analyzing the hypothesis that has been formulated in
relation to the findings in this conversation, it seems that a regular pattern of Dutch single
words switches does occur because of the influence of a Dutch cultural dinner theme that was
initiated by the Dutch ESN mentors. In addition, it can be argued is that the length of the
participants’ stay in the Netherlands (one semester for most of the students) has exposed
them to the Dutch language and that it might have been one of the reasons for the participants
to use Dutch lexemes in this conversation and to pronounce these words with a Dutch
pronunciation. The occurrence of Dutch is shown by the occurrence of Dutch cultural
concepts, as seen in the four fragments that have been discussed, which refer to Dutch
geographical names of location, foods, stereotypes, etc. Thus, these fragments confirm that
which is stated in the hypothesis, namely: Because the recording session of the second
58
conversation took place during an informal dinner session that revolved around a Dutch
dinner theme, it is most likely that a pattern of single word switches to Dutch will be used by
international and local students to refer to Dutch cultural concepts.
4.3 Group G3: Native Speakers
For the analysis of code switching utterances that occur in this group, it is essential to take
several answers to the questions that have been asked in the questionnaires into consideration.
Especially the four questions which have been mentioned in the results chapter will be taken
into account when discussing the occurrence of several types of code switches. Six fragments
have been selected and transcribed from this conversation. In this analysis, however, we will
limit ourselves to the discussion of the following fragment: Scottish Wee. As code switches in
Dutch do not take a major role in this conversation, we will mainly be focused with code
switches to other varieties of English which are represented by these three fragments. First of
all, a discussion will be presented on the Scottish Wee fragment, which offers an interesting
example of Scottish English. The lexeme wee is a Scottish informal word, according to
Sinclair, which stands for “small in size or extent” and is seen here as a form of intrasentential switching. (1777). Irish speakers G3 Pm and G3 Bm comment on the somewhat
demanding and rude tone of speaker G3 Af, who directs one of the participants to put up
something on a board that hangs on one of the living room walls, showing drawings of the
different people who are living there and those that have paid a visit to their house. In other
words, wee board is used to refer to a small board that hangs on the wall of the living room.
Scottish Wee
82 [02:44.0] 83 [02:46.0] 84 [02:48.0]
85 [02:50.0]
HEHE
put it on the wee board bitch, sorry ! (what)(what)?
small
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Af [f]
G3 Af (translation)
G3 Pm [m]
..
G3 Af [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
no w you're just gonna have a plate on your face, i kno w .
..
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Bm [m]
86 [02:52.0]
that's down
87 [02:54.0] 88 [02:55.3] 89 [02:56.6] 90 [02:58.0] 91 [02:59.3] 92 [03:00.6]
on history, that is G3 Af.
59
Trudgill argues that “among the dialectal words which seem never to have belonged to SE,
[Scottish English], the most interesting group is the one consisting of words drawn from
Scottish and northern English dialects. Some of these, [including the word wee], are used only
in Ulster, where Scottish settlement was extensive” (141). Trudgill’s remark seems to indicate
that wee is not considered as an established loanword because it is not incorporated into SE,
but is seen instead as a colloquial lexical item used in “Scottish and northern English dialects”
(141). According to Sinclair, “colloquial words and phrases are informal and are used mainly
in conversation. They are part of a collocation, [which stands for] the way that some words
occur regularly whenever another word is used” (290). However, though Trudgill argues that
this word is used in “Scottish and northern English dialects,” this lexeme also seems to be
known and used in other parts of the British Isles as it is uttered by speaker G3 Af from
Gloucestershire, a county in the South-West of England (141). The other participants seem to
have knowledge of this word as well as they show no sign of having misunderstood the
utterance of G3 Af. The reason why these Irish speakers might have commented on this
lexeme is because they are familiar with this colloquial lexeme which is still used in Ulster, a
province which is geographically spread over a part of Northern Ireland and the Republic of
Ireland. Thus, this lexical item can be regarded as a colloquial word which is used by a
specific group of people in specific regions: some Scottish and northern Englishmen and the
region of “Ulster” according to Trudgill (141). The lexeme does, however, seem to be
recognized by all the participants and therefore it seems to be implied that it is a lexeme that
is being used by some inhabitants of Britain and Ireland, and that it is, to some extent, known
or maybe even used in the USA.
There can be several reasons for the occurrence of this lexeme. When listening to the
fragment, it becomes clear that the speaker wants to emphasize this word by pronouncing this
lexeme with a loud voice. The speaker is aware of the fact that she has incorporated a lexeme
from a dialect which is not her own. Speaker G3 Af comes from a town called Bream in
Gloucestershire, south-west of England (see questionnaire). It is highly likely that the speaker
uttered this item because she wanted to “emphasize a particular point in the conversation,”
i.e., demanding to put something on a wee board might come across as being more direct than
demanding something to be put on a small board. With this lexical choice, the speaker thus
“reinforce[es] her request” (Záňová 19). With the addition of the word bitch, G3 Af also
injects humor and laughter with the saying put it on the wee board bitch (Záňová 29).
It is a pity that not more example of single word switches in the form of colloquial
60
words and idiomatic expressions were found in this conversation. It is therefore difficult to
draw conclusions from the findings that have been made in this conversation. However, in
accordance with the hypothesis that relates to this group of native speakers, it can be said that
even though native speakers share English as a communal language, the participants from this
group have shown to use culturally loaded lexemes, in the form of an individual example of a
single word switch that is used to denote a concept from another variety of English. Having
asked the participants which dialect they speak and from which region they are has especially
been useful with regard to the first fragment that has been discussed.
61
5. Conclusion
5.1 Hypotheses and Research Question
In conclusion, as the role of code switching in intercultural ELF conversations among native
and non-native speakers of English has been discussed, we will continue to discuss the
answers to the hypotheses and the research question, which have functioned as helpful
guidelines throughout the investigation of code switching utterances in these conversations. I
will provide conclusions on the discoveries that have been made in each conversation and
answer the hypothesis that relates to each group conversation. First of all, I will briefly
discuss the reasons for the structural arrangement of the participants in the three different
groups. The groups have been assembled in this way because the objectives of this study
were to find out what the differences between these groups would be when looking at the
form and contents of the code switching instances that would occur in each group. Thus, the
aim of this research was to find out what kind of code switches were most likely to occur in a
particular group and what the reasons would be for the participants to implement these
switches in their interactions with other participants. The objectives of this study were thus to
find out what the differences between these groups would be when looking at the form and
contents of the code switching instances that would occur in each group. The first hypotheses
I raised at the beginning of my study were related to the group consisting of native and nonnative speakers of English:
Hypothesis 1.1
Because the first group has a great number of different nationalities where, in most cases,
there is only one representative for each nationality (with the exception of the Spanish and
Dutch participants), there might be more need to maintain and display one’s cultural identity
by using borrowings, single word switches and lexical idioms when speaking about aspects
that belong to one’s cultural identity.
Hypothesis 1.2
As these students have, on average, been living in the Netherlands for a longer period than
the participants from the other groups (with the exception of the native Dutch speakers) and
are experiencing the Dutch student life on a daily basis, the participants in this group might
62
be more acquainted with the Dutch culture and therefore use the names of Dutch cultural
concepts, presented in single word switches, to refer to the Dutch cultural heritage, student
life and typical aspects of a Dutch identity.
The first hypothesis relates to code switches that are found in this particular conversation. The
fragments Turkish Kebab, Italian Heritage and Allergies are examples of borrowings which
are used by native speakers of the languages where the borrowings originate from. In the last
two examples, these borrowings are repeated by non-native speakers. The Italian heritage
fragment is an example of a code switch that occurs in the form of a borrowing and functions
as a representation of the other borrowings that occur in this conversation. This hypothesis
therefore confirms the findings that are made with respect to the occurrence of code switching
utterances. As for the second hypothesis, it can be argued that most of the code switches are
single word switches which, in most cases, reflect aspects concerning the Dutch student life of
an Erasmus student. There are four fragments which contain code switches that denote
characteristic aspects of the Netherlands. References are made to Dutch cities, geographical
areas and student life. Three references are made, with respect to the expression of the
Italian’s own cultural and national identity, to aspects which are part of the Italian cultural
heritage. Furthermore, the absence of lexical idioms was not expected in this conversation and
came as a surprise. Thus, the occurrence of lexical items in the form of single word switches
and established borrowings, which direct aspects of a speaker’s cultural identity and aspects
characteristic of a Dutch cultural identity, show to be in congruence with the hypothesis that
has been formulated for this particular group when disregarding the absence of lexical idioms.
The Dutch cultural and national identity takes a more prominent role in the second
conversation, where there are many occurrences of single word switches to Dutch. The
hypothesis for this group is thus in congruence with the form and contents of code switches
that are presented in this conversation. The second hypothesis is presented here:
Hypothesis 2
Because the recording session of the second conversation took place during an informal
dinner session that revolved around a Dutch dinner theme, it is most likely that a pattern of
single word switches to Dutch will be used to refer to Dutch cultural concepts.
63
As this group conversation has been recorded during an informal dinner session, it is
interesting to note that this dinner gathering is associated with a Dutch cultural theme evening
where two Dutch participants have cooked a typical Dutch dinner for their international coparticipants to get acquainted with the Dutch cuisine and culture. Because of this, it was
argued that the situational setting of a Dutch cultural theme would result in a high number of
code switches to Dutch when referring to aspects that are present in the Dutch culture. Four
out of eight code switching fragments contain switches that refer to aspects which are present
in the Dutch culture. Not only has this conversation proven that Dutch students refer to Dutch
foods, drinks and habits, but it has also been observed that international students are able to
speak Dutch when they interact with Dutch students and engage in discussions on Dutch
cultural concepts. The Dutch participants are mostly engaged in discussions about typical
Dutch foods which they try to explain to the international students. Furthermore, the Dutch
students are also aware that they share a common identity which becomes apparent in a
fragment where a Dutch stereotype is being used for one of the Dutch participants. On the
other hand, the international students show their knowledge of Dutch by pronouncing the
names of Dutch cities with a Dutch accent. In conclusion, the findings that have been made in
this conversation show to be in congruence with the hypothesis that has been formulated for
this group.
The third group is arranged differently in comparison to the other groups since it
consists of only native speakers of English (the researcher’s nationality is not taken into
account). The hypothesis that has been formulated for this group is related to the act of code
switching to different styles and varieties of one national language:
Hypothesis 3
Native speakers, irrespective of sharing a communal language, are able to express cultural
identities by switching to different codes which are presented as single word switches and
lexical idioms and are linguistically and culturally specific to their co-participants’ variety of
English.
The discovery and analysis of code switches in this group has shown to be an interesting
investigation because, first of all, there have been few studies which have focused on the act
of code switching within one language and secondly, the occurrence of code switching in this
64
conversation has illustrated that there are not only cultural but also many language differences
between native speakers. With the occurrence of code switches to other varieties and dialects
of English, the speakers of this group have shown that code switching to different varieties
within a national language is possible. Evidence for this can be found in the six code
switching fragments that have been transcribed. Especially those three fragments that have
been discussed in the analysis chapter are good examples of code switches which denote
linguacultural aspects from American and British varieties of English. All in all, the
discoveries that have been made in this group show to be in congruence with the hypothesis
that has been made for this particular conversation.
In the following paragraphs, the hypotheses that have been formulated for each
conversation will be discussed in relation to the research question.
Research Question
How are lexical items, presented in single code switches, established borrowings and lexical
idioms used in order to express speakers’ linguacultural backgrounds in ELF conversations
of native and non-native speakers of English?
As the influence of L1 and Ln languages in ELF conversations have previously been
discussed in relation to the findings that were made in each conversation, we will now
continue to provide an answer to the central research question of this study. When comparing
the form and contents of the code switches in the different conversations, it can be argued that
the differences between these conversations are rather related to the contents of the code
switches instead of the forms in which these code switches occur. To be more precise, the
code switches that occur in one conversation do not deviate that much from those switches
that occur in another conversation. Generally speaking, it can be established that single word
switches make up the highest frequency rate of code switching utterances in every
conversation. What is more interesting to observe, however, is that the contents of code
switches, be it in single word switches, established borrowings or lexical idioms, differ from
each other depending on the topics that are being discussed in each conversation. The first
conversation is the most multicultural group since it contains people from six different
nationalities. Because of this, it was assumed (see hypothesis 1.1) that the speakers (native
and non-native) would express aspects of their own culture via CS to maintain their cultural
65
and national identity in a group which contains such a variety of different nationalities and
where native speakers would also be able to present their cultural identity. Furthermore, it was
assumed that both native and non-native speakers would express their cultural identity by
using their mother tongue or that native speakers would use lexical items from varieties and
dialects of one’s mother tongue to make cultural references to a language and its culture. This
did not happen in this conversation as the native speakers were not that exuberant speakers in
this conversation and did not take a leading role in the presentation of their cultural identity.
More code switches have been used in this conversation to display the cultural identity of coparticipants instead of using these code switches to reflect one’s own cultural identity.
Especially Dutch concepts play an important role in this conversation and are discussed by
almost every participant in this group. One of the reasons for this can be related to the length
of their stay. All of these participants have indicated that they have lived in the Netherlands
for longer than a semester meaning that they might have been influenced by experiences they
have had in the Netherlands. As a result, this conversation mostly shows the occurrence of
single word switches which relate to aspects inherent to the Dutch lifestyle, education,
geographical areas and Dutch student life.
The second conversation presents many occurrences of single word switches. Most of
these single word switches are used to denote aspects relating to the Dutch lifestyle, food
culture and geographical areas. This conversation, therefore, differs from the first
conversation in showing a more regular pattern of code switches to Dutch. The focus of this
conversation thus lies in the expression of the Dutch culture which is related to the Dutch
cultural dinner theme that is presented by the Dutch ESN mentors. As a result, this theme
evening has been a major contributor to the occurrence of lexical items which denote the
names of Dutch cities, Dutch foods and colloquial, informal concepts. It was assumed that
having only non-native speakers of English in this group would offer a variety of code
switches to different languages whereby the role of English would not be the center of the
conversation. In other words, native speakers were excluded from this conversation because it
would be interesting to see if there would be any differences in the type and contents of code
switches when comparing the first and second conversation. It would have been interesting to
observe if, under the influence of native speakers, non-native speakers would imitate the
variety of native speakers by using lexemes and idioms that would belong to a particular
variety or dialect of a native speaker. Unfortunately, this did not occur.
The third conversation has shown that code switching can also occur in the conversations of
66
groups of native speakers. Several interesting observations have been made in this
conversation relating to the occurrence of lexical items belonging to a particular dialect or
variety of English. One of these references referred to a colloquial item whereas the other two
consisted of a lexical idiom and a discussion where the differences in lexical meanings,
depending on the context and the culture in which is used, were discussed. These cultural
references have shown that even though there English might be seen as a language of
identification by all of the participants from this group, there are still some minor language
differences within each variety or dialect of English and which are intrinsic to these varieties
and dialects. The authenticity and originality of these items thus shows that they have
acquired a position within the culture where that language is used. All in all, it seems as if
code switching has been accepted as an essential element within these lingua franca
conversations and that it has become an essential component of the intercultural discourse that
has taken place in these conversations due to the participants’ dedication to come to mutual
understandings of the use and contents of these code switching utterances. As the participants
share their cultural differences and resemblances with each other, the participants create a
new culture, the discursive interculture, where the use of L1 and Ln languages are used to
signal different cultures. Above all, this research has shown that within this lingua franca
communication system which is, according to House, “not dependent on native speaker norms
[as it is used as] “a language of communication, not identification,” ELF is indeed able to
accommodate all kinds of different languages and language varieties in which people have the
freedom to express their cultural identity via the use of their own linguistic norms and
behaviours (557).
5.2 Limitations
There are several aspects which could have been done differently in the process of this study.
First of all, it must be observed that although the analyses of these conversations have shown
many interesting occurrences of code switching, this study has only focused on the code
switching in three conversations, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about similar
lingua franca groups. It is not certain if the same discoveries will be made when analyzing the
act of code switching in other contexts. Furthermore, it appeared to be difficult, in the first
stage of this research, to formulate hypotheses that would fit the composition of each group.
As each group was composed with the idea that differences would be found between native
and non-native speakers, in the first place, a selection was made of three groups where the
67
first group would consist of native and non-native group members, the second of non-native
speakers and the third of only native speakers of English. With these groups, I assumed that
differences would especially be found between the first and second group regarding the
influence of native speakers on the use of code switches by non-native speakers. This,
however, turned out to be an ill-formed hypothesis as this study would take a qualitative and
not a quantitative approach to code switching in lingua franca conversations and, regarding
the latter approach, it would be difficult to draw conclusions based on the quantity of code
switches. Consequently, these hypotheses were adjusted to fit the qualitative approach of this
study and were formulated with respect to the categorization of native and non-native
participants in the groups and the contents and types of code switches that were most likely to
be found. As a result, it has been more difficult to present the composition of these groups in
light of the new hypotheses that have been formulated. What is more, since the questionnaires
were based on the first hypotheses, the questionnaires did not fit into this current study as was
first expected. This is why only several questions from the questionnaires have been discussed
in this study. Furthermore, the transcriptions could have been more precise if I had used a
video-recorder instead of an audio-recorder. As there were many occasions in the
conversations where speech overlaps did occur, it was difficult, at times, to decipher what was
being said. Therefore, it would have been much easier to decipher the linguistic utterances of
the speakers by not only hearing them, but also seeing them pronounce these utterances.
5.3 Future Directions
All in all, it has been interesting to observe the linguistic aspect of code switching in different
lingua franca groups as it is a concept which has been investigated in numerous studies but
has not gained much attention in relation to the cultural contexts in which these code switches
are used. As a follow-up on this study, it would be interesting to analyze the types of code
switches and the context in which these switches occur in more extended studies on lingua
franca conversations. Especially the aspect of Clyne’s triggering hypothesis could be taken
into account in future studies, whereby a more elaborate discussion could be presented on the
places where code switches are most likely to occur. It would be interesting, in this case, to
see if similar discoveries would be made in these studies in comparison to this current study.
Furthermore, it would be an asset to the field of code switching studies when one would pay
more attention to the role of native speakers in these lingua franca conversations and see if
they might influence the use, type and contents of non-native speakers’ code switches. In
68
other words, observing the role of native speaker code switching in future studies would take
an original approach to the analysis of code switching as this is a perspective of code
switching which has hardly been focused on. These studies will contribute to the academic
fields of intercultural communication, (socio) linguistic and even anthropological studies
where the pragmatical side of code switching will play an important role. These studies will
thus aim to shed light on the external influences of code switching in multi- or bilingual
people and will offer different views and findings on the contents, themes, origins and sociolinguistic views on code switching where the role of identity and culture will be discussed in
relation to the occurrence of code switches.
69
6. Works Cited
Allwood, J. “Tvärkulturell Kommunikation.” Tvärkulturell Kommunikation, Trans. Papers in
Anthropological Linguistics 12, University of Göteborg, Dept of Linguistics (1985).
Auer, Peter. “A Postscript: Code-Switching and Social Identity.” Journal of Pragmatics 37
(2005): 403-410.
Bee Chin, Ng., and Wigglesworth, Gillian. Bilingualism: An Advanced Resource Book.
Oxon and New York, Routledge: 2007.”
Bishop, Melissa Maier. “The Role of Language Codeswitching in Increasing Advertising
Effectiveness among Mexican-American Youth.” Diss. U of Texas at Arlington.2006.
Boeije, H. “Kwalitatief Onderzoek.” Onderzoeksmethoden. Eds. Hart, H. et al. Amsterdam:
Boom, 2005.253-290.
Bowe, H, and Martin, K. Communication Across Cultures: Mutual Understanding in a
Global World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Broersma and de Bot. “De Triggertheorie voor Codewisseling: de Oorspronkelijke en een
Aangepaste Versie.” Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen. 65.1 (2001): 41-54.
---. “Triggered Codeswitching: A Corpus-Based Evaluation of the Original Triggering
Hypothesis and a new Alternative.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 9.1
(2006): 1-13.
Cameron, Deborah. Working With Spoken Discourse. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi:
Sage Publications, 2001.
Clyne, Michael. Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Ed.
Salinos Mufwere. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Coenders, ed. Kramers Compactwoordenboek Nederlands. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1997.
Cogo, Alessia., and Martin Dewey. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven
Investigation. London and New York: Continuum, 2012.
---. “Efficiency in ELF Communication: From Pragmatic Motives to Lexico-grammatical
Innovation.” 59-93.
Collins, Beverly, S.P. Den Hollander, Inger M. Mees and Jill Rodd. Sounding Better: A
Practical Guide to English Pronunciation for Speakers of Dutch. Holten: Walvaboek,
2006.
Crystal, David. English as a Global Language. 2nd ed. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
De Vault, M.L. & McCoy, L. “Institutional Ethnography. Using Interviews to Investigate
Relations.” Handbook of Interview Research. Context & Method. Eds J.F. Gubrium
& Holstein, J.A. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001. 751-776.
Deghani, Yavar. “Challenges in Translating Culturally Loaded Words and Phrases.
Department of Farsi/Dari/Pashto and Urdu. DFSL School of Languages. 1-14.
<http://www.aare.edu.au/09pap/deh09871.pdf>.
Dulay, Heidi, Marina Burt, and Stephen Krashen. Language Two. New York: Oxford UP,
1982.
Ehlich, Konrad and Jochen Rehbein. Kennis, Taal En Handelen: Analyses van de
Communicatie in de Klas. Trans. Saskia Bosch. Ed. Jan D. ten Thije. Assen: van
Gorcum, 1993.
Exmaralda. 20 Oct. 2012. DFG, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Universität
70
Hamburg, IDS, Sourceforge.net. 7 July 2012.
<http://www.exmaralda.org/index.html>.
Grosjean, Francois. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard
UP, 2010.
House, Juliane and Jochen Rehbein. Multilingual Matters. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2004.
House, Juliane. “English as a Lingua Franca: a Threat to Multilingualism.” Journal of
Sociolinguistics. 7.4 (2003): 556-578.
Kalocsai, Karolina. “Erasmus exchange students: A behind- the- scenes -view into an EFL
community of practice.” Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies. 3.1 (2009):
25-49.
Kies, Daniel. The Hypertextbooks: Modern English Grammar. 1 Oct. 2012. 31 July 2012.
<http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/style3.htm>.
Klimpfinger, Theresa. “Mind you, sometimes you have to mix – The role of code-switching
in English as a lingua franca.” VIEW[Z]: Vienna English working papers. 16.2
(2007): 36-61.
Koljonen, Markus. “Talking in Languages 2.0.” Cartoon. Flicr.com (front cover image). Sept.
2012. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/dilaudid/4954719152/in/photostream>.
Koole, Tom, and Jan ten Thije. The Construction of Intercultural Discourse: Team
Discussions of Educational Advisers. Eds. Paul van den Hoven, and Wolfgang
Herrlitz. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994.
---. “The Reconstruction of Intercultural Discourse: Methodological Considerations.” Journal
of Pragmatics 33 (2001): 571-587.
Kotthoff, H. (2003). “Lachkulturen Heute: Humor in Gesprächen.” Humor in den Medien.
Ed. Walter Klingler. Baden Baden: Nomos, 2003. 45–73.
Lett, James.“Emic/Etic Distinctions.” Professor James Lett’s Faculty WebPage. Ed. James
Lett. Indian River State College. 6 July. 2012.
<http://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article%20on%20Emics%20and%20Etics.ht
ml>. Messelink, Annelies. “Unity in Superdiversity: Europese Hoedanigheid en
Interculturele Leergierigheid in de Erasmusgeneratie 2.0.” Thesis. U of Utrecht,
2011.
Olivares Baños, María. “Spoken discourse analysis of code-switching between Spanish and
German in a bilingual’s interactive patterns.” Revista TAREAS de Educación. 5
(2010): 1-17.
OED online. June 2012. Oxford University Press. 10 July 2012.
<http://www.oed.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/?>.
Poplack, Shana., David Sankoff, and Christopher Miller. “The Social Correlates and
Linguistic Processes of Lexical Borrowing and Assimilation.” Linguistics 26 (1988):
47-104.
Pőlzl, Ulrike. “Signalling cultural identity in a global language. The use of L1/Ln in ELF.”
Vienna English Working Papers 12.1 (2004):3-23.
Rampton, Ben. “Language Crossing and the Redefinition of Reality: Implications for
Research on Code-Switching Community.” Working Papers in Urban Language &
Literacies, King’s College London. Paper 5 (1997): 1-21.
Romaine, Suzanne. Bilingualism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1995.
Sinclair, ed. Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionary. Glasgow: Harper Collins and Heinle
Cengage Learning, 2009.
Spencer-Oatey and Franklin. Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to
Intercultural Communication. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Spradley, James P. Participant Observation. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas,
71
Montreal, Toronto, London, Sydney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980.
Stockwell, Peter. The Handbook of English Linguistics. Aarts, Bas, and April McMahon, eds.
Malden, oxford, Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2006.
Thije, Jan D. ten and J. Deen. “Interculturele Communicatie: Contrast, Interactie en
Transfer.” Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen 2 (2009): 31-45.
Tracy, Karen. Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: The Guildford
Press, 2002.
Trudgill, Peter, ed. Language in the British Isles. London ; New York ; Melbourne:
Cambridge UP, 1984.
Turkijevakantieland. 15 Jan. 2012. Verasec. 29 July 2012.
<http://www.turkijevakantieland.nl/gozleme.htm>.
Van Dulm, Odene. “The Grammar of English-Afrikaans Code Switching: A Feature
Checking Account.” Diss. Radboud University of Nijmegen. Utrecht: LOT, 2007.
Wales, Katie. A Dictionary of Stylistics. Eds. Geoffrey Leech and Mick Short. London and
New York: Longman, 1989.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguisics. 6th ed. Malden, Oxford and
Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
Wenger, Ettiene. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Záňová, Soňa. “Code-switching as a Communicative Strategy in Bilingual Children.” Thesis.
Masaryk University, 2011.
72
Appendix 1: Transcriptions
1.1 Group G1: Native and Non-Native Speakers
The fragments have all been given titles according to the topics that are being discussed:
Turkish Kebab, Italian Heritage, Housing, Allergies, Dutch ESN Trips, Skydiving and
Bungee-Jumping in Holland and Bier Cantus. The fragments Italian Heritage, Dutch ESN
Trips, Skydiving and Bungee-Jumping in Holland and Bier Cantus will not be illustrated here
as they have already been included in the analysis chapter.
Project Name: Code Switching in Student ELF Interactions
Transcription Convention: Exmaralda transcription conventions and Kotthoff´s conventions
on laughter in interactions. In addition, the square brackets that have been used behind the
speaker´s abbreviations are displayed here in order to indicate the sex of the participant, m
stands for male and f for female.
Kebab is used as a single word switch here. This Turkish concept has not been translated
because it is a concept which is generally known in the world and therefore does not need to
be clarification with a translation in the translation tier.
Turkish Kebab
[59]
349 [06:09.9]
350 [06:12.0*]
351 [06:14.0]
G1 Nm [m]
and then ten minutes later there were people on m y door so i/i
i am not
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
((chuckling))
G1 Nf [f]
((chuckling))
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[60]
..
G1 Nm [m]
that busy at the minute or anything so why not.
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
so living on the kanaalstraat
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
73
[61]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[62]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[63]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[64]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[67]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Pm [m]
G1 Pm (translation)
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[68]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
[69]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[70]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[71]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[72]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
..
uhm, the kebab was in the city centre but i t
Pieces of meat or vegetables grilled on a long thin sti
has a bad influence on you?
..
it's not gonna stop you.
's turkish pizza is on the kanaalstraat that's the easy ( ).
oh man i can cannot eat them anymore, that '
..
s it.
it has/ that's it, it has stopped me. i cannot eat
..
them anymore. from no w on only normal pizza ( ) i ate a lot.
why?
..
352 [06:41.8]
is it
you know it's
because it's cheap.
good
..
354 [06:45.8]
355 [06:47.8]
it's cheap but it's def inetely not good, i mea n it's tasty but it's
stuff.
..
uh
what
356 [06:49.8] 357 [06:51.8]
a night?
do you think about about it ?
na
it's nice especially after a
358 [06:53.8]
359 [06:55.8]
360 [06:57.8]
out?
HAHA
after a party?
a hangover?
after yeah HAHA HAHA after a party.
yeah exactly.
361 [06:59.8]
362 [07:01.8]
363 [07:03.8]
364 [07:05.8]
it's good be fore the hangover.
you
no more food.
yo u want so me ?
365 [07:07.8]
366 [07:09.8]
what?
yeah o k
how can you eat so fast?
you want more food?
that was just what i was
74
[73]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[74]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[75]
..
367 [07:11.8] 368 [07:13.8] 369 [07:15.8]
thinking.
but i haven't had a kebab i n ages.
372 [07:21.8]
373 [07:23.8]
you should get out HEHE (run) out of the tunnel.
371 [07:19.8]
374 [07:25.8]
why?
yeah
yeah
375 [07:27.8] 376 [07:29.8]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
[76]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
[77]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Gm [m]
[78]
G1 Nf [f]
[79]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
[80]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
[81]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
370 [07:17.8]
yeah?
yeah?
yeah
377 [07:31.8]
378 [07:33.8]
of course you've
kebab i think i've ne ver had here, ever .
..
have.
379 [07:35.8]
380 [07:37.8]
uhm
381 [07:39.8]
no
i don't think, no i don't
((hissing)) ((hissing))
fucking cat
..
382 [07:41.8]
383 [07:43.8] 384 [07:45.8]
(
)
r ememb er eating keba b here.
if i eat like
you don't want to it's mine
(
) this
..
385 [07:47.8]
something turkish, i eat turkish pizza , but kebab you know, i can go to
..
386 [07:49.8]
387 [07:51.8]
ok
israel and eat as much and warm as i want . i don't like it there so i don't
..
388 [07:53.8]
389 [07:55.8]
390 [07:57.8]
but here is better.
like it here either.
m m so me t i me s it reminds me of
..
391 [07:59.8]
392 [08:01.8]
(sometimes) (caugh)
it's good
ho me ( so meho w) .
yeah yeah
but it's like everywher e there is so (
)
yeah
This fragment shows references to the Dutch concept of kamernet, a non-translatable concept
which refers to the name of a Dutch website where particularly students can look for
accommodation.
Housing
[137]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[138]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
[139]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
739 [18:38.2]
740 [18:40.2]
741 [18:42.2]
742 [18:44.2]
i think i came from
(
)
ho w did you guys al l come into this hous e kamernet?
743 [18:46.2] 744 [18:48.2]
745 [18:50.2]
746 [18:52.2]
i think you
uuing
yeah,
yeah (via uu).
yeah we (post) in kamernet .
he has to tell the
..
747 [18:54.2]
748 [18:56.2]
749 [18:58.2]
it's a landal group you know?
story.
because
yeah ho w do yo u arrive here G1 Mm
what is uu?
75
[140]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[141]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
..
750 [19:00.2]
751 [19:02.2]
752 [19:04.2]
google has groups and it's a group for uh people in utrecht all
kamernet
b ecaus e
..
753 [19:08.2]
ah yes
755 [19:12.2]
754 [19:10.2]
(sorts)
This fragment contains the lexical borrowings pesto and pasta. These lexemes have not been
translated or further explained in the transcription fragments since they are regarded as wellknown concepts which do not require any further explanation. In addition, the single word
switch dankje/thank you, is used to express gratitude by using the Dutch equivalent of thank
you or thanks.
Allergies
[146]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Gm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[147]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[148]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Mf (researcher) [f]
[149]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
G1 Sf [f]
[150]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
777 [20:54.2] 778 [21:00.2] 779 [21:14.2]
(
)
G1 Rm yo u want p esto ?
780 [21:16.2]
no
781 [21:18.2]
ah i didn't
no, he's allergic to pesto.
oh it's
..
782 [21:20.2]
783 [21:22.2]
784 [21:24.2]
ok
i'll be ok, don't worry.
oh no oo!
so you're not allergic ?
kno w
fuck
mmm
in there
a r e yo u
..
786 [21:28.2]
787 [21:30.2]
788 [21:32.2]
but uh enough to give the food to me .
yes
yes
oh
anybody
allergic?
..
789 [21:34.2]
790 [21:36.2] 791 [21:38.2]
no i just get
itchy.
so you are itchy?
else want? what's happened, what's happened ?
(
..
792 [21:40.2]
so you don't go into anafl a ctic shock?
no
)
793 [21:42.2]
good!
G1 Rm
(how do) i do?
oh my
76
[151]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Mm [m]
[152]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Sf [f]
[153]
G1 Nm [m]
G1 Rm [m]
G1 Nf [f]
G1 Nf (translation)
G1 Mm [m]
..
794 [21:44.2]
just wait
795 [21:46.2]
yeah
god.
eat that pasta with some uh butter or somethin g
for those uh
796 [21:48.2]
797 [21:50.2]
could yo u please give me my pho ne ?
there is some pasta you can take.
798 [21:52.2]
799 [22:00.2] 800 [22:04.2]
801 [22:06.2]
802 [22:08.2]
so ( ) free meal
dankje
thank you
1.2 G2: Non-Native Speakers
The fragments have all been given titles according to the topics that are being discussed:
Dutch Cuisine, Dutch Higher Education, Dutch Place Names, Vodka and Raki, Tosti
Pancake, Pancakes for Dessert, Sandwich Fillings, Cultural Concepts, Hutspot, Stereotypes,
Dutch Sweets and Queen’s day. The fragments Dutch Cuisine, Dutch Place Names, Sandwich
Fillings and Stereotypes will not be included in this appendix as they can be found in the
analysis chapter, where these fragments have been discussed in greater detail.
Project Name: Code Switching in Student ELF Interactions
Transcription Convention: Exmaralda transcription conventions and Kotthoff´s conventions
on laughter in interactions. In addition, the square brackets that have been used behind the
speaker´s abbreviations are displayed here in order to indicate the sex of the participant, m
stands for male and f for female.
Dutch Cuisine
G2 Fm [m]
[21]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[22]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[23]
G2 Saf [f]
[24]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
147 [04:54.0] 148 [04:56.0] 149 [04:58.0] 150 [05:00.0]
after yo u tr y the b eerenb urg we can tr y
151 [05:02.0]
152 [05:04.0]
153 [05:06.0]
there is also one with silver right?
(smoking).
yeah but it's/ it's
..
154 [05:08.0] 155 [05:10.0] 156 [05:12.0] 157 [05:14.0] 158 [05:16.0] 159 [05:18.0]
with anise?
this food is
wit h anise . yeah.
..
160 [05:20.0]
161 [05:22.0]
very, like typical to ea t in the winter mostly. people who say like
..
162 [05:24.0]
163 [05:26.0]
oh yeah it's winter so now we make like hutspot , stamppot, b ut i n
hotchpot mash pot
77
[25]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
..
164 [05:28.0]
summer they normally don't (eat it).
165 [05:30.0]
than what do you eat in
Dutch Higher Education
The single word switch hogeschool is illustrated in this fragment. It is a Dutch word which
denotes a form of colleges of higher education.
[43]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[44]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[45]
G2 Cf [f]
[46]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[47]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
.. 269 [07:13.7]
270 [07:15.7] 271 [07:17.7] 272 [07:19.7]
273 [07:21.7]
but at the, it's all like at the uhm
..
274 [07:23.7]
275 [07:25.7]
hoge
school
(that one)
no, we are in hog e school
university?
hogeschool, ok
276 [07:27.7] 277 [07:29.7]
278 [07:31.7] 279 [07:33.7]
but in my ho me university i study l o gistics so, it's
..
280 [07:35.7]
281 [07:37.7]
282 [07:39.7]
different. there is only ad ministration lessons in her e that's
yeah
..
283 [07:41.7]
284 [07:43.7] 285 [07:45.7] 286 [07:47.7] 287 [07:49.7]
(become) i take lots of logistics.
The established borrowings vodka and raki are discussed in the following fragment. Both
lexical items have not been translated because they are generally well-known names which
refer to traditional drinks. Besides, the meaning of these concepts can be derived from the
discussion that takes place in this fragment. For the term raki, the IPA phonetic alphabet,
which is presented by Collins, den Hollander and Mees, has been used to describe the sound
of this lexeme.
Vodka and Raki
[111]
G2 If [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Lf [f]
711 [21:57.7] 712 [21:59.7] 713 [22:01.7] 714 [22:03.7]
715 [22:05.7]
yeah but in in latvia they have a lot of
78
[112]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[113]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[114]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[115]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Lf [f]
[116]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[117]
G2 Fm [m]
[118]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[119]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[120]
G2 Fm [m]
[121]
G2 Fm [m]
[122]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[123]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[124]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
G2 Lf [f]
[125]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[126]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Lf [f]
..
716 [22:07.7] 717 [22:09.7]
HAHA
((chuckling))
wh e r e i s t h e wo d k a ? ( (c h u c k l i n g ) )
vodka right?
(yeah)
((chuckling))
718 [22:11.7] 719 [22:13.7] 720 [22:15.7] 721 [22:17.7] 722 [22:19.7] 723 [22:21.7] 724 [22:23.7] 725 [22:25.7]
but is it
..
726 [22:27.7]
727 [22:29.7]
vodka?
only popular under young people?
(what, you mean
..
728 [22:31.7] 729 [22:33.7]
730 [22:35.7]
mayb e to
no
and older people too you mean, right ?
wo d ka? ) no
..
731 [22:37.7] 732 [22:39.7] 733 [22:41.7]
weddings ( ).
( )
everybody is happy ((giggling) )
((giggling))
yeah
((giggling))
734 [22:43.7] 735 [22:45.7]
736 [22:47.7]
(normally) will a guy from slovakia, to uh to pay your
..
737 [22:49.7]
738 [22:51.7]
739 [22:53.7] 740 [22:55.7]
(ok)
ho use and he gets (vodka)
and uh he showed his wedding
..
741 [22:57.7]
742 [22:59.7]
mm
video to us,
and you have to understand that this wa s at the
..
743 [23:01.7]
744 [23:03.7]
fall o f co mmunis m and that he, like just had a camer a nobody
..
745 [23:05.7]
really knew what it was, it was like for his weddin g he, he
..
746 [23:07.7]
747 [23:09.7]
filmed it. and everybody there was lik e looking angry and mad
..
748 [23:11.7]
749 [23:13.7]
((chuckling))
and
not enjo ying themselve s ( ) and then like an hour
..
750 [23:15.7]
751 [23:17.7]
752 [23:19.7]
((laughing; all)
later you see like all these bottles of vodka
two hours of
..
753 [23:21.7]
754 [23:23.7]
( ) later you see everybody like sitting like this drinkin g silently,
..
755 [23:25.7]
like three hours later, everybody is like
ever ybod y was (happ y).
79
[127]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Lf [f]
..
757 [23:29.7] 758 [23:31.7] 759 [23:33.7]
[128]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[129]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[130]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Mf (researcher, translation)
[131]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[132]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[133]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[134]
G2 Cf [f]
[135]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[136]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[137]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[138]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[139]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
760 [23:35.7]
761 [23:37.7] 762 [23:39.7] 763 [23:41.7] 764 [23:43.7]
wer e happ y.
it's better than cryin g
..
766 [23:47.7]
767 [23:49.7]
because one in turkey we have raki, yo u kno w? an d generally
((giggling) )
((giggling))
((giggling) )
HA
((giggling))
((giggling) )
..
768 [23:51.7]
at least until next morning they
769 [23:53.7] 770 [23:55.7]
it's
raki, raki
the
yeah drink yeah
anise drink (Turkish name)
(sorry what) oh rakija?
anise drink (Serbo-Kroatian name)
.. 771 [23:57.7]
772 [23:59.7] 773 [24:01.7]
the ( )
mmm
yeah
usually, ok correct me if i am
turkish ra, raki oh yeah.
..
774 [24:03.7] 775 [24:05.7]
776 [24:07.7]
one
wr o n g but, we usually when people drink it the y become really
..
777 [24:09.7]
778 [24:11.7]
779 [24:13.7]
yeah
yeah
really?
sad and old memories, real ( ) problems so ever y body is like
..
780 [24:15.7]
781 [24:17.7]
t h e y g e t i n a depression when they drink rak i, but they're also
782 [24:19.7]
783 [24:21.7]
784 [24:23.7]
become sort uh frien d ly, they hug everyone, they say i love you
..
785 [24:25.7]
((giggling) )
((giggling))
((giggling) )
((giggling))
((giggling) )
((giggling))
bro and
at the same time, they are crying.
((giggling))
((giggling))
786 [24:27.7]
787 [24:29.7]
do they drink this at
so it has real ( ) different affects.
..
788 [24:31.7]
789 [24:33.7]
790 [24:35.7]
wed d ings?
no
it is not very usual.
yeah sometimes.
in weddings?
791 [24:37.7]
792 [24:39.7]
793 [24:41.7]
mm i don't kno w i have never been to a local wedding .
is that the
80
[140]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[141]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[142]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[143]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[144]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[145]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[146]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[147]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
..
794 [24:43.7]
((chuckling))
((chuckling))
turkish way of saying it, ra/ raka?
..
796 [24:47.7] 797 [24:49.7]
795 [24:45.7]
/ raˈkɯ /
/ raˈkɯ/
(so this is called) this is a serbian drink
/ raˈkɯ / /raˈkɯ/ yeah
..
798 [24:51.7]
no, no it's
799 [24:53.7]
right?
..
yeah
but they have it in so many countries
in
800 [24:55.7] 801 [24:57.7]
802 [24:59.7]
but they, they are all a
(the real countries)
serbia in russia, ( ).
..
803 [25:01.7]
804 [25:03.7]
805 [25:05.7]
bit different i 've had many, man y rakus or raki je or rakija or rak i
in greece
806 [25:07.7]
807 [25:09.7]
ja, i had many types and they were all a bit different.
and
..
808 [25:11.7]
809 [25:13.7]
yeah
they all give yo u the same headache, right after ?
yeah i
..
810 [25:15.7]
811 [25:17.7] 812 [25:19.7] 813 [25:21.7] 814 [25:22.2]
don't like it, it's too strong.
Tosti Pancake
[ 154]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[155]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[156]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
864 [27:02.2]
865 [27:04.2]
866 [27:06.2]
i would normall y (we) have ketchup with thi s except i
really? HEHE
..
867 [27:08.2]
don't have any ketchup right no w b ut
ketchup?! oh you would
..
868 [27:10.2]
yeah with cheese pancake ( ) with ketchup. like to sti ketchup .
grilled cheese
sandwich
mm
mm
put ketchup.
In the following fragment, the single Dutch word switches stroop wafels, stroop and gözleme,
a Turkish lexeme which refers to a type of pancake, are used. Gözleme is explained on the
Turkijevakantieland website as a typical Turkish pancake “which is baked on a metal plate
81
and might contain different ingredients such as feta cheese, potatoes and meat which can be
put between the different layers of the pancake” (screen. 1).
Pancakes for Dessert
[164]
G2 Saf [f]
[165]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[166]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[167]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[168]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[169]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
[170]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 Sf (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
925 [29:04.2] 926 [29:06.2] 927 [29:08.2] 928 [29:10.2]
but it's good. now we're going to the
..
929 [29:12.2]
plain ones so it's time to really start ro lling them nicely .
yeah
yeah
..
i
931 [29:16.2] 932 [29:18.2]
you like stroop and you like stroo p wafels.
didn't like this stroop
sirop
..
934 [29:22.2]
yeah
you guys probably see this as a dessert thing, right?
..936 [29:26.2]
even when it's with
(you) have to do it with stroop.
mm
..
937 [29:28.2]
938 [29:30.2]
cheese?
no, with cheese u h it's like a meal.
939 [29:32.2]
gözleme yeah.
see turkish translation
940 [29:34.2]
it's like gözleme .
type of Turkish pancake
941 [29:36.2]
yeah but we eat it as a mea l
HEHE
The single word switch dürüm is used in the following fragment. It refers to a Turkish dish
which is somewhat similar to kebab. It has not been translated here because it is a well-known
concept which is consumed everywhere in the world and thus will not require a translation
here.
Cultural Concepts
[207]
G2 Sf (translation)
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
1101 [34:54.6] 1102 [34:56.6] 1103 [34:58.6] 1104 [35:00.6] 1105 [35:02.6] 1106 [35:04.6]
(HEHE)
it's like dürüm.
82
[208]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
1107 [35:06.6]
yeah
1108 [35:08.6]
1109 [35:10.6]
no
look it's perfect, but i think i put it too much an d it is ( ).
HEHE
This fragment illustrates the occurrence of the single word switch hutspot which has
previously been mentioned in another fragment where its meaning has been fully discussed in
the analysis chapter of this thesis.
Say Hutspot
[216]
G2 Fm [m]
[217]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[218]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Lf [f]
1140 [36:12.6] 1141 [36:14.6] 1142 [36:16.6] 1143 [36:18.6] 1144 [36:20.6] 1145 [36:22.6] 1146 [36:24.6]
just say
..
1147 [36:26.6]
1148 [36:28.6]
1149 [36:30.6]
uh m hutspo t whe n i have to stop.
no say hutspot.
stop!
no thank
..
1150 [36:32.6] 1151 [36:34.6] 1152 [36:36.6] 1153 [36:38.6] 1154 [36:40.6]
you ((giggling)).
and it includes stroo p wafels.
sirop wafels
((giggling))
((giggling)) (we)
HEHE
oo h jammie .
((giggling))
This fragment contains the single word switches stroopwafels, roze koeken, tompoezen and
koningendag and konings, a lexical item used in a phrase. The single word switches
koningendag and konings can be considered as cultural references to the Dutch culture as they
relate to the Dutch monarchy in the discussion that is held in this fragment.
Dutch Sweets and Queen’s Day
[325]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Mf (researcher, translation)
G2 Lf [f]
[326]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Mf (researcher, translation)
G2 Lf [f]
..
1864 [60:17.6]
1865 [60:19.6]
really like stroop wafels yeah (really like)
sirop wafels
it's so nice if you put
sirop
..
1866 [60:21.6]
1867 [60:23.6]
1868 [60:25.6]
for some
yeah, (big) one
stroopwafels in the micro wave
wafels
we tried once to
83
[327]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 If [f]
G2 Lf [f]
[328]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Cf (translation)
[329]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 Sf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[330]
G2 Vf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[331]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[332]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[333]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 If [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Mf (researcher, translation)
[334]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 If [f]
G2 If (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
G2 Mf (researcher, translation)
[335]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[336]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
..
1869 [60:27.6]
1870 [60:29.6] 1871 [60:31.6] 1872 [60:33.6]
people been to long, it gets messy .
[337]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
..
1898 [61:25.6]
1899 [61:27.6]
1900 [61:29.6]
like uh sort of cream.
a uh
a sort of pink layer on top and the n another
(it's really tasty).
1873 [60:35.6]
1874 [60:37.6]
i really, really like the big stroop wafels they sell at in market
sirop wafels
1875 [60:39.6]
1876 [60:41.6] 1877 [60:43.6]
1878 [60:45.6]
(those are great).
ooh
ooh
and uh what is
they are really war m and nice.
ooh yeah they
..
1879 [60:47.6] 1880 [60:49.6]
1881 [60:51.6]
(cookies with the pink),
this uh pink cookies?
(ah yeah today i buy like a cookie ) oo uhm
this is a (
..
1882 [60:53.6]
1883 [60:55.6]
(was that) ( ) like cakes or?
(
)
(no)
yeah yeah
)
yeah I know what you
1884 [60:57.6]
1885 [60:59.6]
1886 [61:01.6]
like (little) cakes?
they are like cakes.
(yeah like cupcakes)
yeah ( ) and they have like a layer in between?
..
1887 [61:03.6] 1888 [61:05.6]
1889 [61:07.6]
(
)
no
no, roze
pink
no it's like a top
top
ja roze koeken,
ne e roze koeken.
on top pink cookies
pink cookies
tompoezen you mean?
no?
pastry cream cake with icing on top
..
1890 [61:09.6]
1891 [61:11.6]
koeken.
well just like pink cookies.
cookies
roze what?
pink what?
oh roze koeken
pink cookies
1892 [61:13.6] 1893 [61:15.6]
1894 [61:17.6]
i thought you meant like this othe r thing, and then it's
1895 [61:19.6]
1896 [61:21.6]
1897 [61:23.6]
like a layer of some sor t of pastry or, and than then they have like
84
[338]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[339]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[340]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[341]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Mf (researcher) [f]
[342]
G2 Saf [f]
[343]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 If [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[354]
G2 Saf [f]
[355]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[356]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
[357]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[358]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[359]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[360]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[361]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[362]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Cf [f]
[363]
G2 Saf [f]
[364]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Fm [m]
[365]
G2 Saf [f]
G2 Saf (translation)
G2 Fm [m]
G2 Cf [f]
..
1901 [61:31.6]
1902 [61:33.6]
one underneath and i n b e t w e e n t h e r e i s s o m e s o r t o f custard,
..
1903 [61:35.6]
1904 [61:37.6]
mm
no
no
vanilla pudding.
and it's sort of like a cake thing, it's it's
1905 [61:39.6]
1906 [61:41.6]
that's also good.
and it's typical dutch too?
but that's really nice.
1907 [61:43.6]
1908 [61:45.6] 1909 [61:47.6] 1910 [61:49.6] 1911 [61:51.6] 1912 [61:53.6]
yeah, it is.
uhm, i think so
1913 [61:55.6]
1914 [61:57.6]
1915 [61:59.6]
but for queen's day and for the european cup socce r they have
..
1916 [62:01.6] 1917 [62:03.6] 1918 [62:05.6] 1919 [62:07.6]
them in orange .
1984 [64:17.6] 1985 [64:19.6] 1986 [64:21.6] 1987 [64:23.6] 1988 [64:25.6]
1989 [64:27.6]
but now actually the crown
..
1990 [64:29.6]
prince, uhm his birthday i s like one or two days before queen's
( )
.. 1991 [64:31.6]
1992 [64:33.6]
day
so it is actually really good.
well
really?
so they are not going to change it again ? yeah?
..
1993 [64:35.6]
they, they would just keep i t ( ) like that, but then it's actually
..
1994 [64:37.6]
1995 [64:39.6]
close to the birth/birthday of the kin g that we're having.
..
1996 [64:41.6]
yeah
1997 [64:43.6]
really?
but they were talking about changing the dates ?
1998 [64:45.6]
1999 [64:47.6]
2000 [64:49.6]
to his birthday or?
why?
just let
yeah.
yeah.
no idea, to celebrate .
..
2001 [64:51.6]
2002 [64:53.6]
him have his bir thday and then, do we call it king's day?
yeah
2003 [64:55.6]
2004 [64:57.6]
we've had/ we've had three
queens in a row, so we are
would they (
)
king's day?
..
2005 [64:59.6]
2006 [65:01.6]
really used to queen's day but i don't know king's day, it just
..
2007 [65:03.6] 2008 [65:05.6]
2009 [65:07.6]
doesn't sound nice.
no
it's
why not?
it sounds cool.
..
2010 [65:09.6]
2011 [65:11.6]
2012 [65:13.6] 2013 [65:15.6]
queen's day. koningendag. kom op.
HEHE
HEHE
kingsday
come on.
dat is konings.
ok, i'
that is kingly.
..
85
1.3 G3: Native Speakers
The following fragments have been selected and transcribed: Scottish Wee, To Piss Oneself,
Dutch Food, Housing, Dutch Higher Education and Miscommunication. The fragments
Scottish Wee, To Piss Oneself and Miscommunication will be omitted from this appendix and
can be found in the analysis chapter of this thesis.
Project Name: Code Switching in Student ELF Interactions
Transcription Convention: Exmaralda transcription conventions and Kotthoff´s conventions
on laughter in interactions. In addition, the square brackets that have been used behind the
speaker´s abbreviations are displayed here in order to indicate the sex of the participant, m
stands for male and f for female.
This following fragment contains single word switches to Dutch and Asian foods such as
bitterballen and bapao’s, respectively. Bapao is a steamed bread roll that contains meat or
vegetables inside. They have not been translated in the translation tier because they do not
have an equivalent lexeme for this concept in Dutch or English.
Dutch Food
[82]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[83]
G3 Cf [f]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[84]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Cf [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Pm (translation)
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[85]
G3 Cf [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
578 [13:04.1] 579 [13:04.3] 580 [13:05.1] 581 [13:06.4] 582 [13:06.5]
583 [13:07.6]
what abo ut dutch food, do you guys
585 [13:09.5] 586 [13:10.2]
587 [13:10.7]
we do n't even kno w what dutch food
never make so methin g dutch?
.. 588 [13:11.5] 589 [13:12.2]
590 [13:13.4] 591 [13:14.1]
tell us!
..
584 [13:08.4]
is.
i love
i like the bitter ball things
593 [13:16.4]
( )
i know, (i've heard of
no, they're good.
594 [13:17.4]
..
592 [13:15.4]
them).
(they are pretty bad).
you need and i need, you nee d (a proper fire) for
those are good
86
[86]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Cf [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[87]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
[88]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Af [f]
G3 Af (translation)
G3 Pm [m]
[89]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Af [f]
G3 Af (translation)
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Pm (translation)
G3 Bm [m]
[90]
G3 Cm [m]
G3 Af [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
..
595 [13:18.3]
596 [13:19.2]
you can't put them in the
(yeah)
yeah
th e m i mean yo u can put the m in the oven.
ah yeah
..
597 [13:20.3]
598 [13:21.1]
o ve n then they just got disgu sting
..
(they'll
(what it is called disgusting) .
600 [13:23.0]
601 [13:24.1]
602 [13:24.9]
i eat those (bap) things that you can get for in the micro wave (
melt).
..
603 [13:26.3] 604 [13:26.9] 605 [13:27.7]
606 [13:28.7]
).
yeah ( )
(broodjes)
ahh ( i like that)
bread rolls
(broodjes)?
(bapao's)?
oh
(they are
bread
rolls
(bapao's)?
..
607 [13:29.6]
608 [13:30.6]
609 [13:31.5]
nah i really love them and i am addicted or
really nice).
(
)
This fragment contains the following single word switches: Wilhelmina Park, Lunetten, which
are the names of a park and a neighborhood in the city of Utrecht, Hoogvliet and Albert Heijn,
which are the names of two Dutch supermarket chains.
Housing
[98]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[99]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Cf [f]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[100]
G3 Af [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
658 [14:38.5] 659 [14:39.6] 660 [14:40.5] 661 [14:41.6]
662 [14:42.5]
then there's seven of us in our house and
..
663 [14:43.6]
there's three in yours.
664 [14:44.5] 665 [14:45.6]
666 [14:46.5]
667 [14:47.6]
where do yo u live ?
(true)
(in yours).
next to
668 [14:48.5] 669 [14:49.6]
670 [14:50.5]
671 [14:51.6]
ooh such a nice area.
oh (cool)
yeah that's a great
the wilhelmina park
yeah
yeah
..
87
[101]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[102]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Pm [m]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
[103]
G3 Ff [f]
G3 Bm [m]
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f]
..
672 [14:52.5]
that's near eric.
673 [14:53.6]
674 [14:54.5]
place to live.
yeah
but i first i was living in uh lunetten
677 [14:57.6]
678 [14:58.5]
..676 [14:56.5]
lunetten yeah?
that's we're i would play the (foot) matches.
..
679 [14:59.6]
((chuckling))
680 [15:00.5]
681 [15:01.6]
like uhm
682 [15:02.5]
albert heijn is it?
above the su permarket.
[104]
..
683 [15:03.6]
684 [15:04.5]
685 [15:05.6]
G3 Ff [f]
( )
G3 Pm [m]
ho/ho hoogvlie t
yeah ok
G3 Bm [m]
hoogvliet
exactly.
G3 Mf (the researcher) [f] one.
no the other
686 [15:06.5]
88